purch_yearA year as the record has it: spending by tax tag net of refunds and of what was paid back, rows in a tagged category with no receipt, interest paid on cards and loans and interest earned, fees, and expenses still waiting to be paid back. Totals, not tax advice.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| year | No | e.g. 2026. Defaults to this year. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds useful context about netting refunds/paybacks and outstanding reimbursements, plus the 'not tax advice' caveat, but says nothing about output format, permissions, or calculation boundaries.
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 with no filler: the first leads with the annual scope and enumerates the included data, while the second is a compact disclaimer. The phrasing is dense and slightly cryptic, but it is appropriately sized for a report tool with no output schema.
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 annual-summary tool with no output schema, the description enumerates the included data categories reasonably well. It still leaves return shape, grouping, and whether the year is calendar or fiscal unspecified, which matters for interpreting 'Totals'.
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 only parameter, year, is fully documented in the schema with an example and default. The description's 'A year' adds no further semantics such as calendar vs fiscal year or accepted formats, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 names the resource (a year's purchase/expense totals) and enumerates included data such as tax-tag spending, refunds, interest, fees, and unpaid reimbursements. However, it never uses a clear verb like 'get' or 'summarize annual totals' and does not distinguish it from siblings such as purch_spend, purch_purchases, or tax_liability.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no named alternative. 'Totals, not tax advice' is a scope disclaimer, not routing guidance for choosing between this and purch_spend, purch_net_worth, or tax_liability.
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.