get_expenseRetrieve detailed information for a specific expense by providing its unique ID, enabling quick access to transaction records for review or verification.
Fetch a single expense by its ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| expense_id | Yes | The unique ID of the expense. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Fetch' unambiguously indicates a read-only, non-mutating operation, which is useful. However, it does not disclose error behavior, permission requirements, or what happens when the ID is not found.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the verb, target, and scope immediately and concisely.
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-parameter read operation with an output schema present, the description plus schema are largely sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. Minor gaps remain around not-found behavior and explicit differentiation from list_expenses, but these are not critical at this complexity level.
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 sole parameter is already fully documented in the schema as an integer `expense_id`. The description's 'by its ID' is consistent but adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema, so the high-coverage baseline of 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?
The description uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('a single expense') with an explicit ID-based scope. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_expenses or search_expenses.
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 phrase 'by its ID' clearly signals when to use this tool: when retrieving one known expense. It implies the tool is not for listing or searching, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.