Full realize() balance sheet — often served from cache. Settles at the same fixed price regardless of cache hit/miss. Shares a combined free allowance of 2 with export_ledger, get_income_statement, and get_trial_balance (the "report tier") — not 2 free calls each.
| 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses cache behavior and fixed pricing, but does not mention read-only nature, authentication requirements beyond parameters, or rate limits. This is adequate but not comprehensive.
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?
The description is only three sentences with no extraneous information. The core purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence adds value regarding caching, pricing, and allowance. It is a model of conciseness.
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 the absence of an output schema, the description should have explained the return value. It also fails to compensate for the lack of parameter descriptions. The tool has moderate complexity (auth params, optional payment header), so more context is needed.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description provides no information about any of the 5 parameters (nonce, signature, timestamp, public_key, payment_header). The agent has no guidance on parameter usage or formats, which is a critical gap.
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 retrieves a 'full realize() balance sheet', specifying the resource and verb. It adds nuance about caching and fixed pricing, distinguishing it from siblings that might have different caching or pricing behaviors.
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?
The description explicitly mentions a shared free allowance with export_ledger, get_income_statement, and get_trial_balance, guiding the agent on quota management. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide alternatives beyond the shared allowance mention.
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.