projects_get_financialsFull financial picture for one project - budget, spent-to-date, FAC (forecast at completion), revenue, profit/loss and forecasted margin. Uses the SAME shared calculation module as the Project Finance page in the UI, so the numbers always match. Requires finance permission.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description's permission requirement and the guarantee that results come from the same calculation module as the UI add meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations. It does not describe error behavior for missing permission, but that is minor given the strong annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences deliver scope, output contents, a consistency guarantee, and a permission prerequisite with no repetition or filler. The key information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description adequately scopes the tool and lists the financial metrics involved, which is important because there is no output schema. It does not specify the exact response structure, field names, or failure behavior, but for a one-parameter read-only tool with strong annotations this is reasonably complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description only loosely maps to the parameter by saying 'for one project', which implies project_id identifies the target project. The single parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description adds no detail about ID format, how to obtain valid IDs, or any constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool provides 'full financial picture for one project' and enumerates the exact metrics returned: budget, spent-to-date, FAC, revenue, profit/loss, and forecasted margin. The scope ('one project') and title ('full P&L') make its purpose specific and distinguishable from generic project tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It gives a useful prerequisite ('Requires finance permission') and implies authority by noting the numbers match the Project Finance page. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of the similarly named sibling projects_get_finance, nor does it mention exclusions or alternative tools for other financial views.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools follow a clear resource+action pattern and the descriptions are unusually precise about boundaries. A few near-overlaps remain: projects_get_finance vs projects_get_financials, and notes_create vs crm_log_activity on a deal are both plausible for recording a note on a deal.
The domain_prefix_action convention is consistent across nearly all tools, e.g. crm_create_lead, projects_update_risk, timelog_approve_time. Deviations include standalone list_trash, meta tools like whoami/tool_search/tool_invoke, and the confusing projects_get_finance/projects_get_financials pair.
With 105 tools, this far exceeds the 50+ threshold defined as an extreme mismatch. Even for a full ERP/CRM suite, the fine-grained split—39 project tools alone—creates a massive tool-selection surface that is hard for an agent to navigate reliably.
The surface covers CRM, projects, tasks, time/expenses, HR, notes, notifications, contracts, and reporting with create/read/update/delete for most primary entities. Minor gaps exist: crm_log_activity has no read-back path, contracts lack delete/restore, and proposals are intentionally read-only, but agents can work around these.