Export the full ledger as literal Beancount text — a portable snapshot for fava/bean-report/etc., not the live store. Shares a combined free allowance of 2 with get_balance_sheet, get_income_statement, and get_trial_balance (the "report tier") — not 2 free calls for each of those four separately.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| nonce | Yes | ||
| signature | Yes | ||
| timestamp | Yes | ||
| public_key | Yes | ||
| payment_header | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. It discloses the tool is a snapshot export (not live store) and allowance sharing, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or return format.
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?
Two sentences, efficient and front-loaded, but could be more concise by integrating parameter details.
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?
Given no output schema and 5 parameters, the description omits critical parameter explanations and return value info, making it incomplete for a parameter-heavy tool.
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 adds no meaning to any of the 5 parameters (nonce, signature, timestamp, public_key, optional payment_header), leaving agents without guidance.
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 it exports the full ledger as Beancount text, a portable snapshot, distinguishing it from live store. It also contextually differentiates from sibling report tools via allowance sharing.
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?
Provides explicit context on when to possibly avoid (due to shared allowance with other report tools), but does not explicitly state when to use or not use alternatives beyond that.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: account inquiries, financial reports, directive management, validation, key generation, and batch submission. No two tools overlap in functionality despite some being related reports.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case (e.g., export_ledger, get_balance_sheet, list_accounts). The naming is predictable and clear throughout.
With 11 tools covering ledger management, reporting, validation, and key generation, the count is well-scoped for the server's purpose. Each tool justifies its existence without being too few or too many.
The tool set covers essential operations for a Beancount ledger: submission of directives (single and batch), listing of accounts and directives, generation of key financial reports, balance queries, validation, and key registration. No obvious gaps are present.