summarizeGet a summary of expenses by category, with optional date-range or category filters to analyze spending and identify cost patterns.
Summarize expenses by category. Optionally filter by date range or category.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| category | No | Filter by specific category (optional) | |
| end_date | No | End date YYYY-MM-DD (optional) | |
| start_date | No | Start date YYYY-MM-DD (optional) |
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 must convey behavioral transparency. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, what the output structure is, or any side effects or limits. 'Summarize' hints at a read-aggregation, but the complete lack of return-format or safety information leaves an agent guessing.
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 short sentences that immediately state the core action. There is a slight redundancy ('by category' then 'or category') but no wasted words. It is well sized and the main purpose is front-loaded.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete for safely invoking this tool. It does not explain what the returned summary contains (e.g., total per category? count? amounts?) or how filters interact. An agent cannot confidently distinguish between an empty result and a malformed output.
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 input schema already documents all three parameters with descriptions, and whole schema description coverage is 100%. The description only echoes these options ('Optionally filter by date range or category') without adding extra semantic meaning, so the 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?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Summarize expenses by category.' This is clearer than a vague purpose and is distinguishable from the sibling list_expenses by the inherent difference between summarizing and listing. However, no explicit contrast to sibling tools is given, so it falls just short of a 5.
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 gives implied usage context by mentioning optional category and date filters, which indicates this tool handles filtered summaries. But it does not explicitly tell the agent when to prefer this over list_expenses, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The intended usage is actionable but not firmly guided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.