ledger_set_budgetSet an agent's budget caps.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_id | Yes | unique agent identifier | |
| daily_cents | No | daily spending cap in cents (0 = no daily cap) | |
| monthly_cents | Yes | monthly spending cap in cents |
| 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?
The description only conveys that the tool modifies budget caps ('Set'). It does not disclose how missing parameters are handled (e.g., daily_cents defaults to 0), whether it overwrites or merges existing caps, or any side effects. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and falls short.
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 concise and to the point, with no unnecessary words or jargon. It effectively communicates the core action in a single sentence.
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 description is adequate for a simple mutation but lacking in context. It does not mention the return value or output schema, even though one exists, nor does it explain expected behavior when certain parameters are omitted. This could leave an agent uncertain about the tool's full effect.
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?
All three parameters have descriptions that convey their basic meaning. Daily_cents clearly notes that 0 means no cap and has a default. However, monthly_cents lacks a similar clarification for 0, leaving possible ambiguity.
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's function: setting an agent's budget caps. It uses a specific verb-object structure and is distinct from sibling tools like ledger_alerts, ledger_report, and ledger_track.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool should or should not be used.
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.