Skip to main content
Glama

finance

Transactions: Create transaction

create_transaction
    Create a new transaction.

    Args:
        account_id: The account ID for this transaction
        amount: Transaction amount (positive number)
        description: Description of the transaction
        transaction_type: 'deposit', 'withdrawal', or 'transfer'.
            On asset accounts (checking, savings, cash, investment):
              - 'deposit'    = money in (pair with an income category like "Salary")
              - 'withdrawal' = money out (pair with an expense category like "Groceries")
            On debt accounts (credit_card, loan, mortgage, heloc, arm, student_loan):
              - 'deposit'    = a charge/purchase that INCREASES the debt
                               (pair with an expense category like "Shopping")
              - 'withdrawal' = a payment that DECREASES the debt
                               (pair with an income category like "Credit Card Payment")
            Record a CC purchase as transaction_type='deposit' with an expense
            category; record a CC bill payment as transaction_type='withdrawal'
            with an income category. The category type is inverted on debt
            accounts versus asset accounts — this is by design.
        transaction_date: Date in YYYY-MM-DD format (defaults to current UTC date)
        category_name: Category name (optional, case-insensitive)
        transfer_to_account_id: Destination account ID (required for transfers)
        confirm_future: If transaction_date is more than 30 days in the
            future, the tool refuses and returns a `requires_confirmation`
            error. Resubmit with confirm_future=True to accept — e.g.
            scheduled rent a few months out. Defaults to False to catch
            fat-fingered dates like "2035-01-01".

    Returns:
        Created transaction details
    

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
amountYes
account_idYes
descriptionYes
category_nameNo
confirm_futureNo
transaction_dateNo
transaction_typeYes
transfer_to_account_idNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description goes far beyond the sparse annotations by explaining the date default, the 30-day future-date guard, the requires_confirmation error, and the inverted category semantics on debt accounts. It also clearly states defaults for transaction_date, category_name, and confirm_future. This gives the agent accurate behavioral expectations before invoking the tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is somewhat long, but the length is justified by the complexity of transaction_type semantics and the confirmation behavior. It is well-structured as Args and Returns, with the core action front-loaded. A few explanatory sentences could be tightened, but nothing is filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a complex creation tool with no output schema, the description covers required arguments, optional arguments, defaults, transfer requirements, and a key error case. The only gap is that the return value is only described as 'Created transaction details' without specifying which fields the agent can expect, which matters more because no output schema exists.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry all parameter meaning, and it does. Every parameter is explained, with especially valuable semantic detail for transaction_type, including concrete deposit/withdrawal examples for asset and debt accounts. confirm_future's purpose and failure mode are also clearly tied to the parameter.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a clear, specific action: 'Create a new transaction.' It names the resource and is easily distinguished from siblings like create_recurring_transaction or import_transactions. The detailed type guidance further clarifies what kind of transaction entity this creates.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives strong in-tool usage guidance, such as how transaction_type behaves differently on asset versus debt accounts and that transfer_to_account_id is required for transfers. However, it never explicitly tells the agent when to choose this tool over related siblings like create_recurring_transaction or update_transaction. There is no alternative or exclusion guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources