Identify journal entries with mismatched debits and credits to catch import errors and manual entry mistakes.
貸借が一致しない仕訳だけを返す。取込不良と手入力の混入を最初に落とすために使う。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| journals | Yes | 仕訳の配列。簡易形 { date, debit_account, credit_account, amount } か、明細形 { date, lines: [{ account, debit, credit }] } のどちらでも受ける。 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states this is a read-only filter that returns only unbalanced journals and frames it as a data-quality pre-filter, which is the main behavior an agent needs to know.
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?
Two short, purposeful sentences; the core behavior is front-loaded and the second sentence adds a concrete use case. There is no filler or repetition.
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?
The tool is simple, accepts one well-documented parameter, and the description states both the input purpose and the output predicate. It is fully usable without needing extra edge-case or output formatting details.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a tool-level purpose but does not expand on the `journals` parameter semantics beyond what the schema already documents.
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 ('返す') and a precise resource ('貸借が一致しない仕訳だけ' return only unmatched journal entries), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like screen_journals or detect_duplicates. It defines the tool's core behavior in one concrete predicate.
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 second sentence explicitly states when to use it: as the first-pass filter to drop import failures and manual-entry contamination. It gives clear usage context but does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.