x5_get_spending

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description adds valuable behavioral detail: spending is computed without double-counting by line items, the period is inclusive, and null network values mean 'unknown.' This goes beyond the annotations and prevents a common misinterpretation, though the phrase 'сеть по исходному коду' is somewhat cryptic and not fully clarified.

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 compact and front-loaded, conveying the most important behavior (receipt-sum spending) in the first clause. The second clause is telegraphic but economical. It is not padded with filler, though the phrasing of 'сеть по исходному коду' could be clearer without adding much length.

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, the description does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., a single total or a time series), which is a notable gap for an aggregation tool. It covers the key semantic details of the date range and null handling, but the network enum values and their meaning are not explained, and the lack of any return-type hint makes the definition only partially complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the lack of property docs. It usefully explains that the from/to period is inclusive and that null means 'unknown,' but it does not mention the groupBy parameter at all. The groupBy enum is self-explanatory, but the description does not carry enough weight to fully cover all four parameters.

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 clearly states the tool reports spending ('Траты') based on receipt sums rather than itemized products ('по суммам чеков, без удвоения по товарам'), which identifies both the resource and a key semantic distinction. It does not explicitly name a sibling or contrast with x5_get_category_spending, so it loses the top point, but the purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as x5_get_category_spending or x5_search_purchases. The phrase 'без удвоения по товарам' implies it should be used for receipt-level totals, but no direct 'use this when…' or 'use that instead…' guidance is provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.