journalize

get_account_balance

Balance of a single account. Settles at the same fixed price whether the account exists or not — an "unknown account" answer is still a valid, billable response (no per-error pricing discount). No free-trial allowance for this specific tool, unlike list_directives (same price, but list_directives has 2 free calls and this doesn't) — the free tier applies to browsing (list_directives, list_accounts) and the report tier, not per-account lookups.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`nonce`	Yes
`account`	Yes
`signature`	Yes
`timestamp`	Yes
`public_key`	Yes
`payment_header`	No

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description provides important behavioral details: fixed pricing regardless of account existence and no free-trial allowance. This informs the agent about billing implications beyond basic functionality.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is moderately concise but includes a long second sentence with detailed pricing logic that could be shortened without losing meaning.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a tool with 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers only pricing context. Missing parameter explanations and return value information make it incomplete.

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

Parameters1/5

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

The description does not explain any of the 6 parameters (nonce, account, signature, etc.) despite 0% schema coverage. The agent must rely solely on parameter names, which may be insufficient.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly indicates it retrieves the balance of a single account. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_accounts (listing) and get_balance_sheet (full report), but does not explicitly use a verb like 'get' in the first sentence.

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 mentions when to use (single account balance) and contrasts pricing with list_directives, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives for other scenarios like batch lookups.

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

All journalize tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

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.

Naming Consistency5/5

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.

Tool Count5/5

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.

Completeness5/5

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.

Resources

Need Help?