Retrieve an expense breakdown grouped by category or account to see where money is being spent. Read-only report for spending analysis.
Get the expense breakdown grouped by category/account. Read-only report for understanding where money is being spent.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| periodBucket | No | Optional period bucket filter (integer); omit for the default view |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.9Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the safety profile ("Read-only report"), which is genuinely useful given the absence of readOnlyHint, but it says nothing about the default period covered, whether all accounts are included, or whether the periodBucket filter changes scope.
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?
Two sentences, both front-loaded: the first defines the output, the second defines the safety profile and purpose. No filler, no restatement of the tool name.
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 one-optional-parameter read-only report, the description conveys the shape of the result (a breakdown grouped by category/account) in lieu of an output schema, and flags the read-only nature in lieu of annotations. Only the default time window and aggregation granularity remain unstated, which is a minor gap.
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 description coverage is 100% and the single periodBucket parameter is already documented as an optional integer filter in the schema. The description adds no information about the parameter (it never mentions period filtering), so baseline 3 applies.
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 (Get) and resource (expense breakdown grouped by category/account), so the agent knows exactly what is produced. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from its close sibling get_income_by_category or the other report tools (get_trial_balance, get_profit_and_loss), though the word 'expense' does most of the work implicitly.
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?
"Read-only report for understanding where money is being spent" hints at the analytical use case, which is implied usage guidance. It never states when to pick this over get_income_by_category or get_profit_and_loss, and there are no prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.