business_snapshotA one-glance health check of your business: today's and this-month's sales and expenses, so far. Sales and expenses ONLY — if you want the fuller morning read (cash position, who owes you, pending approvals, tax position, low stock) call daily_brief instead; it includes everything here.
| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds scope context ('Sales and expenses ONLY', 'so far') which clarifies what data is returned without contradicting the read-only nature. It doesn't exhaustively describe edge cases but does enough for a simple read tool.
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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and then delivers a clear alternative, making every sentence earn its place.
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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns and how it relates to sibling tools. There is no missing context for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per rubric. The description compensates by explaining exactly what data is included (today's and this-month's sales and expenses), which adds meaning beyond the empty 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 clearly states it provides a one-glance health check of today's and this-month's sales and expenses, which is a specific verb+resource. It also explicitly differentiates from the daily_brief sibling tool by limiting scope to sales and expenses only.
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 explicitly names the alternative tool (daily_brief) for a fuller morning read and states that it includes everything this tool provides, effectively giving when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance. This is exemplary usage differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.