List all opened accounts with their currency constraints and booking method. No booking pass involved. Your first 2 calls per registered key are free (a separate allowance from list_directives' and the report tier's — see those tools).
| 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?
Discloses free call allowance but lacks other behavioral details. With no annotations, the description should mention read-only nature or authentication requirements. Currently adequate but could improve.
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 purpose, no wasted words. Efficiently conveys the key point and a usage nuance.
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?
With 5 parameters (4 required), no output schema, and no parameter documentation, the description is woefully incomplete. The agent lacks essential information to use the 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no information about the five parameters (public_key, nonce, timestamp, signature, payment_header). The agent has no way to understand how to call the tool correctly.
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?
Clearly states 'List all opened accounts with their currency constraints and booking method.' The verb 'list' and the resource 'accounts' are specific. Additionally, it distinguishes from siblings by noting 'No booking pass involved.'
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 free call allowance and distinguishes from sibling tools list_directives and report tier. However, does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or alternative scenarios.
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.