Trial balance, period-scoped same as income statement — same underlying compute, priced and audited as its own resource. Shares a combined free allowance of 2 with export_ledger, get_balance_sheet, and get_income_statement (the "report tier") — not 2 free calls each.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| nonce | Yes | ||
| since | No | ||
| until | No | ||
| signature | Yes | ||
| timestamp | Yes | ||
| public_key | Yes | ||
| payment_header | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses pricing and audit behavior, and that it shares a combined free allowance, which is beyond basic purpose. However, with no annotations, it lacks detail on idempotency, side effects, or error conditions.
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, front-loaded with the key noun 'Trial balance'. Efficient and to the point, though the second sentence is slightly dense.
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 7 parameters, the description is too sparse. It does not explain return values, pagination, or error handling. The free allowance note is useful but insufficient for complete understanding.
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 7 parameters (since, until, nonce, etc.). This fails to add meaning beyond the schema.
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 is a trial balance, period-scoped like the income statement. It identifies the specific financial report, distinguishing it as a separate resource. However, it could more explicitly state the verb 'get' or 'retrieve' for absolute clarity.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like get_balance_sheet or get_income_statement. The description mentions shared free allowance but does not provide criteria for choosing between siblings.
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.