ledger_trackRecord a spend entry for an agent.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rail | Yes | payment rail used ("mpp", "x402", "api_key", "manual") | |
| service | Yes | what was purchased (e.g. "search_query", "data_export") | |
| agent_id | Yes | unique agent identifier | |
| amount_cents | Yes | spend amount in cents (100 = $1.00) |
| 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 indicates a write operation ('Record') but does not disclose side effects such as whether it creates a new entry, updates an existing one, or is idempotent. With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden, but it remains minimal and does not fully specify behavioral expectations.
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 a single, concise sentence that immediately states the purpose. It contains no redundant words or vague phrasing, making it highly efficient and well-structured.
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, combined with the detailed parameter schema, provides enough context for an agent to understand what the tool does. Since an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values. However, it omits any mention of edge cases or preconditions, which is a minor gap but does not hinder basic usage.
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 provides descriptions for all four parameters (agent_id, rail, amount_cents, service) with sufficient detail, including enum-like values for rail and an example for service. The description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond the schema, so it neither enhances nor detracts from the parameter clarity.
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 action ('Record') and the object ('a spend entry for an agent'). It unambiguously distinguishes this tool from siblings like ledger_report or ledger_set_budget by focusing on recording individual spend transactions.
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 the sibling tools. It does not mention that this should be used for logging individual spend events, nor does it contrast with ledger_alerts or ledger_report. An agent would have to infer usage from the name and parameters alone.
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.