summarize_spendingSummarize September synthetic spending by category and display an interactive view; click any category to fetch the individual expense records behind that total.
Return September synthetic spending by category with an interactive view.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that the period is fixed to September (relevant given zero parameters) but the phrase 'interactive view' is unexplained and ambiguous about what actually comes back.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no padding. The one questionable element is 'with an interactive view', which spends words on a concept it does not define rather than on useful routing information.
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 parameters, the description should carry the burden of saying what is returned (chart versus raw category totals, granularity, ordering). It only gestures at 'spending by category' and an undefined 'interactive view', leaving the agent guessing about the result.
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 tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a zero-parameter tool applies. The fixed September scope is the only semantic constraint and it is at least mentioned.
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 (Return) and resource (September synthetic spending by category), which is clear enough for an agent to know what it produces. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling inspect_category, and 'by category' could be read as covering all categories while the sibling implies per-category drill-down. Clear but undifferentiated.
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 statement of when to use this tool versus inspect_category, nor any exclusion or precondition. The agent must infer the relationship between the two tools from their names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.