List the user's transaction categories. Use this to resolve a category mentioned by the user to a categoryId before proposing a transaction or asset trade. If there is no confident match, omit categoryId. If the result is truncated, call again with a more specific nameLike.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| nameLike | No | Optional case-insensitive substring filter on category name. Omit to list all categories. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral context: truncation handling, the confidence-based omission rule, and the implication that results include categoryId/name pairs. It doesn't fully specify return shape, but the description still adds meaningful detail beyond the annotation.
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?
Three short sentences, each carrying essential information: the core action, the matching/omission rule, and the truncation retry rule. The purpose is front-loaded and there is no filler.
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 read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main scenarios: normal listing, ambiguous category matching, and truncated results. The reference to categoryId gives enough contract clarity for correct invocation.
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 already fully documents nameLike as an optional case-insensitive substring filter with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds practical guidance by tying nameLike to the truncation retry strategy, which gives the parameter more operational meaning.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List the user's transaction categories'. It also clarifies the tool's role in resolving a category to categoryId before proposing transactions or asset trades, distinguishing it from sibling get_* tools.
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?
It explicitly says when to use the tool: before proposing a transaction or asset trade, to resolve a category mentioned by the user. It also provides clear fallback instructions: omit categoryId if there is no confident match, and re-call with a more specific nameLike if results are truncated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
