Retrieve total and grouped spend from run history, grouped by job, company, or day, with optional since date filter.
Total and grouped spend from the run history. group_by: job, company or day. since: ISO date.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| since | No | ||
| group_by | No | job |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds useful scope by saying costs come from run history and by naming grouping dimensions, but it does not explain behavior such as what an empty since value means or what the response contains.
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 short, front-loaded, and free of filler. The parameter notes are terse but useful, though the fragmentary style and missing default-value note slightly limit clarity.
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 simple two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is reasonably complete about what is returned and how to group. It still leaves edge cases such as default grouping and empty date handling unexplained, which matters for correct invocation.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description adds needed meaning by listing allowed group_by values (job, company, day) and specifying that since is an ISO date. However, it does not state the default group_by behavior or explain how an empty since value is interpreted.
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 output, total and grouped spend, and ties it to the run history resource. It is clear what the tool computes, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as list_runs.
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?
It names the grouping options and date format but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. An agent must infer usage from the purpose statement alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.