Retrieve bank reconciliation summaries across accounts, including matched/unmatched counts and cleared balances, to review status without making changes.
Get the bank reconciliation summary across accounts — matched/unmatched counts and cleared balances. Read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.9Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does supply the key behavioral fact ('Read-only') and the shape of the returned data. It says nothing about scope/freshness (org-wide? per bank account? live vs cached), which an agent would want before trusting the numbers.
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 tight sentences, zero waste, with the resource and scope front-loaded and the read-only fact appended as a qualifier.
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-param, no-output-schema read tool, the description is nearly sufficient: it names the resource, the aggregation scope, the return contents and the read-only nature. Only the data scope/freshness question remains open.
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?
Zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter documentation is needed here.
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+resource (get reconciliation summary) and names the scope ('across accounts') plus the payload (matched/unmatched counts, cleared balances). This distinguishes it from session-level siblings like search_reconciliation_sessions, though it never names an alternative explicitly.
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?
No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not tell the agent how this differs from search_reconciliation_sessions or start/complete_reconciliation, leaving the choice entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.