query_expense_detailGet individual expenses within a specific account/category for a period. Use after query_expense_breakdown when the user wants to drill into a specific category. Pass either the account code (e.g. '4000') OR the account name (e.g. 'Office Supplies') — both work.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| period | Yes | Time period to query. | |
| categoryCode | Yes | Account code (e.g. "4000") or account name (e.g. "Office Supplies") to drill into. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
No schema history has been recorded yet.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safe read-only profile is covered. The description adds the drill-down workflow context but says nothing about return shape, result volume, or what happens when a category has no activity — modest added value beyond the annotations.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose then usage then the code-vs-name flexibility. Nothing is wasted or buried.
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 two-parameter read-only lookup with full schema coverage and annotations, the description is sufficient to invoke correctly. Only minor gaps remain around what the expense records contain, which is not strictly required for invocation.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% and the schema descriptions already state that categoryCode accepts either an account code or an account name. The description repeats that fact rather than adding anything new, so baseline 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?
States a specific verb and resource (get individual expenses) scoped to one account/category and a period. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling query_expense_breakdown, which is named explicitly as the aggregate-level tool.
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?
Explicitly says to use this after query_expense_breakdown when the user wants to drill into a specific category, giving both the precondition and the alternative. This is exactly the routing guidance an agent needs.
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.