Free dry-run: parse+book text against your full history without persisting or charging anything. Still requires a valid signature (identity/replay protection is not a billing concern).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | ||
| nonce | Yes | ||
| signature | Yes | ||
| timestamp | Yes | ||
| public_key | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that the tool does not persist or charge, but does not elaborate on error behavior, success output, or what 'parse+book' entails. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden.
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 two concise sentences with front-loaded key information ('Free dry-run'), no extraneous 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?
With 5 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain parameters or return values, leaving the agent with incomplete context.
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?
The input schema has 5 required parameters with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain any parameters. No guidance on what public_key, nonce, timestamp, or signature mean or how they should be formatted.
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 'free dry-run' that parses and books text without persisting or charging, distinguishing it from siblings like submit_directive that actually submit directives.
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 implies use for testing before submission (dry-run) and notes signature requirement, but does not explicitly state when to use or when not to use it compared to alternatives like submit_directive.
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.