balance_sheetRetrieve assets, equity, and liabilities per account for a given date, including cash/bank 19xx accounts and the year's result not yet closed to equity.
Assets, equity and liabilities on a date, per account, plus the year's result not yet closed to equity. Cash and bank are the 19xx accounts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | No | Default today |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world, and the description does not contradict them. It goes beyond the annotations by disclosing what the report actually contains — including the year's result not yet closed to equity and the 19xx account convention for cash and bank, which is genuine domain context an agent would not otherwise have.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the report's contents, followed by a useful clarifying convention. No filler or repetition of the title. Slightly cryptic phrase 'not yet closed to equity' costs a little readability but carries real 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, the description must convey the return shape, and it partially does by listing the report's sections and the per-account granularity. It leaves open how results are structured, grouped, or presented, and says nothing about usage context versus sibling financial reports, so it is adequate but not 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?
There is only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, with the schema itself stating the YYYY-MM-DD pattern and 'Default today'. The description adds nothing about the date argument, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 artifact (balance sheet) and enumerates its contents: assets, equity, liabilities on a date, per account, plus the year's result not yet closed to equity. That is far more specific than a bare report name. It does not explicitly name or differentiate from the sibling income_statement, so not 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?
No when-to-use, no prerequisites, no alternatives are given. The closing note about 19xx accounts is domain color rather than guidance on when to call this versus income_statement or account_totals_by_month. The agent must infer the use case from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.