get_savings_goalRetrieve a specific Starling Bank savings goal by its UID to view its progress, target, and balance for a chosen account.
Gets one savings goal.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| accountUid | No | Account UID. Optional: defaults to STARLING_DEFAULT_ACCOUNT_UID, the only account, or the PRIMARY account | |
| savingsGoalUid | Yes | Savings goal (savings space) UID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what those annotations provide, such as error behavior, return shape, or account fallback details.
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 a single short sentence with no wasted words and is front-loaded. It is appropriately compact, though it borders on under-specification for a tool definition.
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 read tool with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It does not describe return values or error cases, but with no output schema and strong annotations, those gaps are less critical.
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 both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
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 ('Gets') and resource ('savings goal'), and the word 'one' distinguishes it from list_savings_goals. However, it does not name the sibling alternative explicitly, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.
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 description provides no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. An agent must infer from the name and schema that a savingsGoalUid is required and that this is the single-item counterpart to list_savings_goals.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.