Get the user's budgets for a specific month, with budgeted/spent/remaining for each. Use for questions about budget status, overspending, or remaining budget balances. Month must be 'YYYY-MM'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| month | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds value beyond that by specifying the output structure (budgeted/spent/remaining per budget) and the required month format. It does not cover edge cases like empty months or pagination, but for a simple read-only tool this is adequate and does not contradict annotations.
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 extremely concise—two sentences that front-load the purpose and output, then state the usage context and format constraint. No wasted words, and every sentence contributes necessary information.
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?
For a single-parameter, read-only tool without an output schema, the description is complete: it states what it returns (budgeted/spent/remaining per budget), the required month format, and the use case. There is no missing information an agent needs to invoke it correctly.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining the month format in human terms ('Month must be 'YYYY-MM'') and implying its purpose ('for a specific month'). The pattern in the schema is reiterated, but the description adds clarity for an agent. While it could elaborate on default behavior, it sufficiently clarifies the single parameter.
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 a specific action (get budgets) with a clear resource (user's budgets) and scope (specific month). It also mentions the output fields (budgeted/spent/remaining), making it unambiguous. Although it doesn't name a sibling, no sibling performs a similar read of budgets, so differentiation is inherent.
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 states when to use this tool: 'for questions about budget status, overspending, or remaining budget balances.' This gives clear context for selection. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, but given that no other sibling serves this exact purpose, the guidance is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
