Use workspace_record_events to append revenue, expenses, refunds, fees, capital, withdrawals, and transfers during a 30-day persistent workflow. Requires a write or admin capability token; no additional x402 charge. Events count against quota and remain until expiry or deletion.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| events | Yes | ||
| workspaceId | Yes | ||
| capabilityToken | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses auth requirements, lack of extra charge, quota counting, and event persistence. Missing details: failure behavior, rate limits, idempotency, or the meaning of '30-day persistent workflow'.
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 sentences, each adding value: purpose and content, auth/charge info, quota/persistence. No redundant or filler text.
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?
Despite complex input schema (nested events with many properties) and an output schema not visible, the description gives no information about return values, error responses, or post-conditions. The 30-day workflow constraint is mentioned but not explained.
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 description must compensate. It only mentions the capabilityToken requirement, but does not explain workspaceId or the complex events parameter structure. The nested event object's many fields are left entirely to 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 starts with a clear verb ('append') and specifies the resource ('events'), listing a comprehensive set of event types (revenue, expenses, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like profit_analyze or workspace_create.
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 states required capability token type ('write or admin'), mentions no additional charge, and notes quota and persistence. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives or provide when-to-use vs. not-to-use 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.
Tools are largely distinct, though profit_analyze and profit_calculate have overlapping purposes. Descriptions clarify the difference (findings vs totals), but potential confusion remains for agents.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (profit_*, workspace_*, report_verify). No mixing of conventions.
8 tools is appropriate for a profit ledger server, covering stateless analysis and persistent workspace workflows without excessive or insufficient tools.
Core CRUD-like operations are covered for both stateless and persistent modes. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no explicit workspace deletion or listing), but the server's purpose is well-served.