ledger_reportSpend report for an agent: totals, by rail, by service, budget status, anomalies.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | report window in days | |
| agent_id | Yes | unique agent identifier |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose whether the tool is read-only or has side effects. While 'report' implies no modifications, that is not explicitly stated.
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 and immediately communicates the tool's purpose and output contents in a single sentence. No wasted words.
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?
The presence of an output schema (per context) means return values do not need explanation. The input schema is fully covered, and the description provides a useful summary of the report's contents, making the tool adequately complete.
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 schema fully describes both parameters ('agent_id' and 'days') with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, but the baseline is met since coverage is 100%.
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 the tool produces a spend report for an agent with specific breakdowns (totals, by rail, by service, budget status, anomalies). It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the 'report' focus is unambiguous.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like ledger_set_budget or ledger_track. The description does not mention prerequisites or alternative 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.
Each tool has a clear, distinct purpose: listing agents, tracking spend, setting budgets, generating reports, and retrieving alerts. No functional overlap or ambiguity.
All tools follow the consistent 'ledger_<verb>' pattern (list_agents, track, set_budget, report, alerts), with only minor variation in verb/noun form but maintaining a uniform prefix and readable style.
Five tools is well-scoped for a focused ledger/agent-spending domain, covering core actions without unnecessary bloat or missing essentials.
The toolset provides comprehensive coverage for the domain: tracking spend, managing budgets, listing agents, generating reports, and surfacing alerts. No obvious gaps for typical use cases.