financial-agent
Server Quality Checklist
Latest release: v0.1.0
- Disambiguation4/5
Tools are largely distinct with clear purposes, but the high number (55) may cause some confusion. For example, multiple 'apply_*' and 'list_*' tools are differentiated by their target entities, and detailed descriptions help. A few tools like 'run_background_sync' and 'run_live_validation' have overlapping scopes but are still distinguishable.
Naming Consistency5/5All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case (e.g., 'apply_obligation_instances', 'list_drift_findings', 'sync_simplefin'). The pattern is predictable and helps agents infer functionality. No mixed styles or vague verbs are present.
Tool Count2/5With 55 tools, the server is significantly over the typical well-scoped range (3-15). While each tool addresses a specific need in finance management, this large surface area can overwhelm agents and increase selection errors. The domain could likely be consolidated without losing coverage.
Completeness4/5The tool set covers a broad lifecycle for obligations, income, reconciliation, drift detection, guardrails, and syncing. Key operations like creation, reading, updating, and deletion are present for most entities, though some CRUD gaps exist (e.g., no explicit delete for obligations). The inclusion of 'verify_grounding' shows attention to integrity.
Average 3.3/5 across 55 of 55 tools scored. Lowest: 2.1/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 91 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add
glama.jsonto the root of your repository:{ "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json", "maintainers": [ "your-github-username" ] }Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.
How to sync the server with GitHub?
Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.
To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.
How is the quality score calculated?
The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).
Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.
Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).
Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.
Tool Scores
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description fails to disclose read-only nature, return format, side effects, or any constraints. 'List' implies a read operation, but without annotations, this is insufficient for an agent to understand behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but too minimal. It lacks front-loaded key information, such as what a 'calendar fact' is, and does not earn its place by providing sufficient detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and 7 undocumented parameters, the description is wholly inadequate. It does not explain the concept of 'calendar facts', 'normalized', or the nature of filters, leaving the agent with little to no context for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description only states 'optional filters' without explaining any of the 7 parameters. Parameter names like 'fact_type' and 'status' are partially self-explanatory, but the description adds no meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb (list) and resource (local normalized calendar facts), which is specific. It distinguishes from siblings like 'import_calendar_facts' by its action, but does not explicitly differentiate from other list tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use or avoid this tool versus alternatives like 'list_obligations'. The phrase 'optional filters' does not clarify which sibling tools serve similar filtering purposes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It notes this is a mutation operation (create/update) with a user confirmation step, but lacks details on idempotency, reversibility, required permissions, or side effects. The information is insufficient for an agent to gauge the tool's impact.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, making it concise. However, it lacks structure such as breaking down key aspects (e.g., behavior, parameters, usage). The sentence is not wasteful but could be more informative without adding length.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has two parameters (one with no internal schema), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief to provide complete context. It omits critical details like what the 'source' object should contain, how the 'db_path' affects behavior, and what the outcome looks like. An agent would struggle to use this tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the parameters 'source' (an object with additionalProperties) and 'db_path' (nullable string) are not documented in the schema. The description does not explain these parameters at all, leaving the agent with no understanding of their meaning or format.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool creates or updates an income source and schedule version after user confirmation. It uses specific verbs ('create', 'update') and a specific resource ('income source', 'schedule version'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'list_income_sources' or 'generate_income_instances'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'after user confirmation' implies a prerequisite, but no when-not-to-use or alternative tools are mentioned. This leaves an agent without clear decision criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description only states 'create or update' without disclosing side effects, safety, authentication needs, or limitations. Minimal behavioral transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, no fluff. However, it is under-specified, missing critical information. Conciseness without completeness reduces value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, nested objects in parameters, and no behavioral annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, object structure, or usage context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 3 parameters with 0% description coverage. Description adds no parameter details. The meaning of 'obligation' object, 'instances' array, and 'db_path' is completely unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description states 'Create or update an obligation and exact dated instances,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like apply_obligation_migration by focusing on instances. However, 'apply' is somewhat vague, and 'exact dated instances' is not fully explained.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings include apply_obligation_migration, generate_income_instances, etc., but the description offers no context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only describes the return value, omitting safety traits (e.g., no destructive side effects) or authentication/rate limit considerations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, concise but under-specified; it lacks structure and omits critical details, making it less effective than a well-organized brief.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the two parameters (one optional) and no parameter descriptions, the description fails to provide sufficient context for correct invocation, especially lacking differentiation from sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description adds no meaning to the parameters 'run_id' or 'db_path', leaving the agent uninformed about their purpose or format.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns a background run record and its ordered operation-event log, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_background_runs that likely return only a list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_background_runs. The description does not mention prerequisites or context for invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility but only states the basic operation. It does not indicate whether the operation is read-only, any required permissions, or other behavioral traits beyond listing and status.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise (one sentence) and front-loaded. However, it lacks structure and could benefit from more detail without being verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema and annotations, and the presence of two undocumented parameters, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what 'action-outbox' items are, possible statuses, or the nature of the returned list.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the 'status' or 'db_path' parameters. The parameters are left entirely undocumented, adding no meaning beyond the raw schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool as listing durable action-outbox items and their status, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on 'action-outbox items' which is unique among the many 'list_*' tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among numerous sibling tools with similar prefixes, no context or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description minimally states the output includes score and evidence but says nothing about behavior like pagination, idempotency, or side effects. For a list operation, more detail is expected.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, very concise, but at the expense of completeness. It is front-loaded but under-specified.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema and only two optional parameters, the description fails to explain 'matched' context, transaction reference, or how parameters affect results. It is incomplete for productive use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no explanation of what the two optional parameters (match_type, db_path) do. The agent has no guidance on how to use them.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists obligation instances matched to a transaction with score and evidence, specifying the action and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like list_unmatched_obligation_instances, but the mention of 'matched' provides necessary context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The description lacks context on typical use cases or situations to avoid.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states what the tool lists, but does not mention whether it is read-only, idempotent, safe, or any side effects. The term 'drift inputs' is jargon and not explained.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, making it concise, but it sacrifices important details. It could be restructured to front-load the core purpose and then add brief parameter explanations.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, no annotations, and two undocumented parameters, the description is insufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly. Additional context about return format, default behaviors, and parameter effects is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning for the two parameters ('past_grace_only', 'db_path'). The agent receives no guidance on their semantics, expected values, or effect on results.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('list') and the resource ('expected obligation instances with no matching transaction'), and adds context ('drift inputs'). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_matched_obligation_instances' or 'list_obligation_review_candidates', which could cause confusion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or cases where another sibling tool would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only states that the tool resolves a conflict. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the operation is destructive, what state changes occur, auth requirements, or error handling. This leaves the agent without critical context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, making it concise, but it sacrifices necessary detail. It is front-loaded with the purpose, but every word is not optimally used; for example, listing decision values without explaining when each is appropriate reduces efficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there are 4 parameters (2 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide more context about tool behavior, return values, and how to use parameters. It only covers the basic resolution action, leaving significant gaps for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds almost no meaning beyond the parameter names. It only mentions the decision options ('import_anyway, skip, or merge'), but fails to explain the role of 'external_task_id', 'merge_with_obligation_id', or 'db_path'. The agent would be forced to infer or guess.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool's action (resolve) and resource (Todoist dedup conflict), listing the possible decisions. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'dedupe_todoist_recurring_duplicates' or 'enqueue_todoist_review_batch', which limits clarity for the agent.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is used after a conflict is flagged, but does not state prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it relates to other Todoist-related sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects (e.g., does it create records?), permissions needed, or rate limits. It only notes the format of one parameter, leaving the tool's behavior largely unclear.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short with two sentences, but it omits critical details. It is not verbose, but the lack of essential information reduces its value. Every sentence is earned, but more sentences are needed.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the return value, side effects, or how the required date parameters are used. A more comprehensive description is necessary.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description should add meaning to all parameters. It only explains 'extra_closure_dates' format. No information is given for 'start_date', 'through_date', or 'db_path', leaving them ambiguous.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that the tool generates dated income obligation instances from configured income schedules. The verb 'generate' and object 'income obligation instances' are specific. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools that also deal with income sources or obligations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use, or any context for invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must carry the full burden. It only says 'list' implying read-only, but provides no additional behavioral context such as pagination, default filters, or what 'local canonical' means.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, very concise but sacrifices detail. It is not overly verbose, but the brevity leaves gaps.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 4 parameters, no output schema, and numerous sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what comprises an obligation, how instances are returned, or how to interpret defaults like status=active.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage. The description only hints at the 'include_instances' parameter via 'optionally their dated instances'. It provides no explanation for the other three parameters (kind, status, db_path) which are not self-explanatory.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool lists 'local canonical obligations' and optionally their dated instances, which is specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like list_matched_obligation_instances or list_unmatched_obligation_instances, but the purpose is reasonably clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many sibling list tools, but the description does not specify the context or constraints for using this one.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or non-destructive. While 'list' implies a read operation, the lack of explicit behavioral disclosure (e.g., no side effects, auth requirements) is a gap given the absence of annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence (13 words), which is efficient, but it omits critical information about parameters and usage. It is not verbose, but it sacrifices completeness for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Without an output schema, the description should clarify what the tool returns. It mentions 'aggregated card-input evidence' but this is vague. The description does not explain the output format, pagination, or how the aggregation works, leaving the agent with significant unknowns.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should explain the parameters. It mentions 'card obligation' but does not describe 'target_obligation_id' or 'db_path'. The required parameter lacks explanation, and the optional parameter's purpose is unclear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it lists statement cycles for a card obligation with aggregated card-input evidence. The verb 'list' and resource 'statement cycles' are explicit, and the additional context about aggregation helps distinguish it from siblings like 'list_statement_input_estimates' or 'list_obligations'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusion criteria. Sibling tools exist but no comparative context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description states idempotency but does not elaborate on what happens if rules already exist (skip, overwrite, or error). No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden but omits details like database connection handling, error states, or side effects. Agents lack critical behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. While very concise, it effectively conveys the core purpose and idempotency. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity, though additional detail could improve completeness without harming conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain the parameter, return behavior, error conditions, or how it fits among related sibling tools like 'evaluate_guardrails' or 'list_guardrail_findings'. Agents may misuse or underutilize it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The sole parameter 'db_path' is not mentioned in the description, and the schema has 0% description coverage. The agent gets no meaningful explanation of what db_path represents (e.g., file path, connection string) or its default behavior when null. The description fails to compensate for the schema gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses specific verb 'seed' and resource 'default guardrail rules', making clear it initializes rules in the database. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'evaluate_guardrails' and 'list_guardrail_findings' which handle different operations, though no explicit differentiation is provided.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The term 'idempotently' implies it is safe to call multiple times, but no prerequisites, context, or exclusions are stated. A better description would mention typical usage scenario (e.g., initial setup or after migration).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description only says 'list recent' without defining recency, ordering, pagination, or side effects. Vague.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single concise sentence, but lacks necessary details about parameters and behavior. Under-specified.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. Lacks info on return value and how parameters affect results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
0% schema coverage and description does not explain any of the 4 parameters (run_type, status, limit, db_path). Agents must infer from parameter names alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it lists background runs with status and timing, distinguishing it from sibling 'get_background_run' which retrieves a single run.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'get_background_run' or other list tools. Conditions for usage are absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must carry the burden. It only says 'list', implying read-only, but doesn't disclose if there are side effects, permission needs, or behavior with parameters like db_path. Minimal transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single concise sentence that is front-loaded. It is not verbose, though additional structured details would improve clarity without sacrificing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, no annotations, and three parameters with zero schema descriptions, the description is incomplete. It lacks definition of finance memories, kind values, limit behavior, and db_path purpose.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It only mentions 'kind' filter but doesn't define valid values or explain 'limit' or 'db_path'. Two of three parameters are undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'list' and the resource 'finance memories', and mentions an optional filter by kind. This differentiates it from siblings like list_obligations or list_income_sources, though it doesn't clarify what a finance memory is versus search_finance_memory.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_finance_memory or write_finance_memory. No prerequisites or context provided for effective use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or idempotent, but as a list operation it is reasonably safe. No mention of authentication, rate limits, or data freshness.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, front-loading the action and key entities. However, it could be more concise by avoiding the list of items if they are not all equally important.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of an output schema and many sibling tools, the description is too sparse. It doesn't explain the relationship between income sources and the other listed items, nor does it describe the output format. The agent may have difficulty interpreting the results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameter 'db_path'. It does not. The parameter is optional and defaults to null, but the agent gets no hint about its purpose or effect on the results.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool lists configured income sources plus related items (schedule versions, review dates, generated horizons), but it's ambiguous whether it lists multiple distinct entities or all these details for each income source. The verb 'List' is clear, but the scope is broader than the name implies.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling list tools (e.g., list_obligations, list_guardrail_findings). The description provides no context about scenarios or prerequisites, leaving the agent to guess.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only mentions one behavioral aspect ('without directly reducing checking') but omits other important traits like read-only nature, side effects, or prerequisites.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action. While it could add parameter info without becoming verbose, it is efficient and to the point.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 5 parameters with no schema descriptions and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain parameters, return format, or context of use, leaving the agent with insufficient information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description does not mention any of the 5 parameters. Schema description coverage is 0%, so parameters are completely undocumented. The agent receives no help on parameter meaning, values, or usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'list' and the resource 'card-spend inputs that feed future statement estimates'. It adds a distinguishing behavioral trait: 'without directly reducing checking', which differentiates it from similar listing tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies a specific context (future statement estimates not affecting checking) but doesn't mention when not to use or compare to siblings like aggregate_statement_inputs or list_statement_cycles.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only list operation but omits details about pagination, result ordering, error handling, or whether the tool triggers side effects. The behavior is minimally described.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with a single sentence that delivers the essential information: what the tool does and its primary filters. It is front-loaded and contains no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 3 parameters and no output schema or annotations. The description covers only two filters, leaving the 'db_path' parameter unexplained. It does not describe the return format, pagination, or any behavioral nuance, making it incomplete for an agent to use effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions the 'status' and 'finding_type' parameters with default values but does not explain their allowed values or formats. The third parameter 'db_path' is entirely unmentioned, leaving its purpose and usage unclear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'list' and the resource 'stored drift findings.' It specifies two filters (status with default 'active' and type), which conveys the tool's scope and differentiates it from related tools like 'detect_drift' that create findings. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling list tools like 'list_guardrail_findings.'
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'list_guardrail_findings' or 'detect_drift.' There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or best practices. The agent must infer usage from the context of drift findings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior. Only states it lists instances needing review; does not mention if it is read-only, required permissions, or any side effects. For a listing operation, read-only is assumed but not confirmed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, very concise. Front-loaded with the purpose. No wasted words, though could benefit from parameter details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given two simple parameters and no output schema, description is incomplete. Does not specify return format, filtering behavior, or parameter purpose. Minimal context for an agent to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has zero description coverage for parameters. Description does not explain as_of_date or db_path. No added value beyond the schema's type and nullability.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool lists obligation instances needing review, with an example 'estimated amounts due for refresh'. This is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like list_obligations which list all instances.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_obligations, list_matched_obligation_instances). The example implies a scenario but no explicit when/when-not.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as that the operation is read-only, has no side effects, or any authentication requirements. It only implies a list operation without explicit safety information.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence of 10 words conveys the core purpose and optional filters. Every word is necessary; no wasted text. It is front-loaded and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (list with filters) but the description does not hint at what is returned (e.g., fields of sync records). With no output schema, more detail on return values would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning for two parameters ('sync_status' and 'external_task_id') by mentioning optional filtering, but completely omits the third parameter 'db_path'. Given 0% schema description coverage, the description only partially compensates.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it lists 'Todoist-to-obligation sync records' with optional filters, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'import_todoist_obligations' or 'sync_todoist' by focusing on listing existing records, but does not explicitly contrast with other list tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. With many siblings, such as 'list_obligations' or 'list_matched_obligation_instances', explicit usage context is missing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explicitly states 'read-only,' which informs the agent that the tool does not modify state. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as rate limiting, authentication needs, or default behavior when called without parameters.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence of 13 words, front-loading the purpose ('Return read-only finance status') and listing key output items. Every word adds value, with no fluff or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given four optional parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain parameter usage or output structure beyond a brief list. The agent lacks sufficient context to use the tool effectively, especially for parameterized queries.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention any of the four parameters (windows, db_path, working_account_id, start_date). The agent receives no guidance on the meaning, format, or effect of parameters, leaving a critical gap in usability.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns read-only finance status and lists specific items (balances, source freshness, trace ids, stable V1 slots). It distinguishes the tool as a read-only status retrieval but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, such as other 'get' tools or list tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not specify expected use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. The user is left without context to choose between this and the many sibling tools (e.g., list_finance_memories, get_daily_digest).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only states the action (list) without disclosing side effects, read-only nature, or any behavioral traits. Agent cannot infer safety or cost implications.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently states the core function. However, it is perhaps too concise and could benefit from additional context without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 3 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return format, the meaning of guardrail evaluations, or the purpose of db_path.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so description must add meaning. It mentions filters by date or rule, corresponding to evaluation_date and rule_type, but completely ignores the db_path parameter. This leaves one parameter unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'list' and the resource 'recorded guardrail evaluations', and mentions optional filters by date or rule. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_drift_findings and evaluate_guardrails.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_drift_findings or evaluate_guardrails. There are no prerequisites or context for appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description states the tool is read-only and explains the behavior of the render_markdown parameter. However, it does not disclose other potential behaviors like data freshness, performance, or side effects. No annotations are provided to supplement.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, using a single paragraph that front-loads the main purpose and then adds details. It is well-structured with no unnecessary information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of an output schema and annotations, the description should provide more detail on the return structure. It lists components but not their format or how they are presented, leaving ambiguity for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema coverage, the description only adds meaning for the render_markdown parameter. The other three parameters (as_of_date, windows, db_path) are not described, leaving the agent without guidance on their purpose or usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool provides a daily finance summary with specific components (balances, cash-flow projection, etc.). It is specific about the resource and verb, but does not explicitly differentiate from the many sibling tools, only mentioning it replaces `just daily` which is not a sibling.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies this is the tool for a daily digest, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives are mentioned, so the agent must infer context from the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the main behavioral effect (reversal, state change, clearing evidence), but does not elaborate on safety, permissions, reversibility, or constraints. Adequate but not thorough.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise with two sentences, no fluff. The action is front-loaded in the first sentence. Every word adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no output schema and minimal parameter descriptions, the description is incomplete. It lacks parameter details, usage context, and return value information, leaving the agent without enough information to invoke correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the parameters 'instance_id' or 'db_path' at all. Users must infer their purpose from context, which is insufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool reverses a confirmation, returning the obligation instance to 'expected' and clearing matched-transaction evidence. The verb 'Reverse a confirmation' and resource 'reconciliation match' are specific, distinguishing it from sibling 'confirm_reconciliation_match'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies use after a confirmation, but does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or when not to use. Lacks context for decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It indicates a destructive action (delete), but does not specify whether the deletion is permanent, whether it requires special permissions, or what consequences it has on other data. More detail is needed for safe usage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise and front-loads the action. However, it could be slightly more structured to separate the action from the example, but overall it is efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there is no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too minimal. It fails to explain return values, error conditions, or prerequisites. A delete operation would benefit from mentioning whether it succeeds silently or returns a confirmation, and any constraints on the memory_id format.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description only indirectly mentions the required parameter (memory_id) via 'by id' but does not explain the optional db_path parameter or provide any formatting or constraints. The description should compensate for the missing schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('delete'), the resource ('finance memory by id'), and provides a concrete example use case ('when a correction is no longer true'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_finance_memories, write_finance_memory, and search_finance_memory.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives a specific scenario ('when a correction is no longer true') but does not explicitly state when to avoid using this tool, nor does it compare to alternatives like search_finance_memory for locating the correct id or list_finance_memories for viewing existing records.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses key behavioral traits: determinism, idempotency, ordering by severity, and persistence behavior ('findings are upserted and disappeared ones marked resolved'). Since no annotations are provided, the description compensates well. However, it does not specify the return format (e.g., list of objects) or effects when persist is false.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (5 short sentences) and front-loads the main purpose. It avoids unnecessary words. Minor improvement could be to structure parameter explanations separately, but current form is efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the purpose, drift types, and key behavioral aspects. However, missing parameter semantics, no output schema, and lack of usage guidance leave completeness gaps. For a tool with four parameters and complex behavior, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description mentions only the 'persist' parameter and its effect. With 0% schema coverage, the description must explain all four parameters but fails to clarify 'as_of_date', 'options', and 'db_path'. It adds no meaning for three out of four parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool detects 'evidence-backed drift findings' and lists specific types of drift. It uses a specific verb-resource combination ('detect drift findings'). However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like 'list_drift_findings' to make the distinction obvious, though the purpose is otherwise clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use (to find drift) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives. It notes the tool is 'Deterministic and idempotent', which advises repeated use is safe, but does not compare to any sibling tools (e.g., when to use 'apply_guardrail_rules' instead).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses partial_success behavior (failing step logged, run continues) and return fields (run id, trace id, status, step summaries). However, no annotations are provided, and details on side effects, idempotency, or rate limits are absent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, with two brief paragraphs that front-load the purpose and then detail orchestrated steps and behavior. It could be tighter by avoiding redundancy with sibling tool names, but overall efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 5 parameters and no output schema, the description lacks essential context on parameter semantics and return details beyond a brief mention. Error handling beyond partial_success is not covered, and the tool's relationship to many sibling tools is only implied.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description provides no information about any of the 5 parameters (as_of_date, options, run_type, trigger_type, db_path). The description fails to explain parameter meaning, format, or usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool runs the finance pipeline as an auditable background run, and lists the orchestrated steps (scan, reconcile, detect drift, preview). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that are individual steps.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for running the full pipeline by listing orchestrated steps, but does not explicitly state when to use this vs individual step tools, nor provides exclusions or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Given no annotations, the description adds detail: deterministic, idempotent, building cycles from statement instances with close dates, assigning inputs, and reporting unrolled inputs. However, it does not clarify whether the tool modifies state or is read-only, which is a gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three sentences, concise and to the point. It front-loads the main action and adds behavioral details. However, it could be more structured by separating behavior from parameter info.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema, 0% parameter coverage, and 2 parameters. The description explains the process but does not cover input semantics or output format. For a tool that likely creates aggregates, more detail on return values and side effects is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no explanation of the parameters 'target_obligation_id' and 'db_path'. It mentions 'target obligation' but does not explicitly link to the parameter or describe what 'db_path' does. This forces the agent to guess.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Group' and the resource 'card-statement-input charges', and specifies the outcome: grouping into statement cycles. It also notes determinism and idempotency, which distinguishes it from sibling tools that may be non-deterministic or involve side effects.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for grouping charges into cycles, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_statement_input_estimates' or 'recompute_statement_estimates'. No when-not or exclusion criteria are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description shoulders the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that the operation is cancellative (cancel future instances), uses a conservative subset match, and is reversible (status -> canceled). This is good transparency for a tool without annotations, though it does not detail every side effect (e.g., does not affect past instances).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is relatively concise, using two sentences and a fragment to convey the core purpose, example, and behavior. It is front-loaded with the key action. There is minimal redundancy, though the fragment could be integrated into a single sentence. It earns its place with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (deduplication with cancellation of future instances) and the absence of an output schema, the description lacks important context. It does not specify the role of 'as_of_date' (likely a cutoff for future instances), what 'future instances' means, or how duplicates are identified (besides 'conservative subset match'). It also does not reference related sibling tools for further context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description adds no information about the parameters 'as_of_date' or 'db_path'. The agent has no guidance on what these parameters mean or how to use them, which is critical for a tool with two parameters. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: cancel future instances of a Todoist-imported obligation that duplicates a proper recurring obligation. It provides a concrete example with costs, and distinguishes itself from siblings like resolve_todoist_dedup_conflict by clearly stating the action (cancel) and the condition (duplicate).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage (when a duplicate is found) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives. It mentions 'conservative subset match' which provides some guidance, but lacks explicit 'when-to-use' and 'when-not-to-use' directives. Sibling tools like resolve_todoist_dedup_conflict suggest a related but different action, but no comparative guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states it returns one candidate (non-mutating), but does not disclose whether the call has side effects (e.g., marking the candidate as 'in progress') or any other behavioral traits beyond the return.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words; every word adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple getter tool with an output schema, the description is minimal but functional; however, it lacks explanation of the priority order and the optional db_path parameter, which reduces completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 1 parameter (db_path) with 0% description coverage; the description does not mention or clarify the parameter's purpose, leaving the agent with no guidance on what to provide.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a clear verb 'Return' and specifies the resource 'charge-onboarding candidate' with qualifiers 'single highest-priority unresolved', making the tool's purpose precise and distinct from sibling tools like 'scan_charge_onboarding_candidates' or 'list_charge_onboarding_queue'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description indicates it returns the highest-priority unresolved candidate, implying use in a processing loop, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like 'list_charge_onboarding_queue' or 'scan_charge_onboarding_candidates', nor does it explain the priority mechanism.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries the burden. It correctly states 'read-only', indicating no state change, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose other aspects like return format, pagination, or authorization requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and condition. It is efficient but could benefit from slight expansion for clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimal. It omits the return structure, parameter details, and usage context. For a tool that lists items, more completeness is needed to guide the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning to the parameters (as_of_date, db_path). It does not mention them at all, leaving the agent to infer their purpose from names alone. This is insufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly specifies the verb 'list', the resource 'recorded transaction matches', and the condition 'awaiting confirmation' with context 'the day's close-out queue'. It also includes 'read-only'. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_matched_obligation_instances.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for the close-out queue but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like confirm_reconciliation_match or list_matched_obligation_instances. No exclusions or comparative guidance provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses that it is a 'guarded write' and idempotent, updating instances in place, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error conditions, or side effects beyond what is described.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, each sentence adds essential context (precondition, idempotency) without waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and many sibling tools, the description lacks parameter semantics, return value info, and error handling, making it insufficient for reliable agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage and 7 parameters, the description provides no explanation of any parameters (e.g., candidate_id, start_date, horizon_days), failing to add meaning beyond the input schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool promotes an accepted candidate into an obligation with dated instances, using specific verbs like 'promote' and 'apply', and distinguishes from siblings like 'preview_charge_onboarding_apply' and 'record_charge_onboarding_decision'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly mentions the precondition that the candidate must be accepted first and that the operation is idempotent, providing clear context for usage, though it doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives like preview or record tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must explain behavior. Mentions 'Conservative' and criteria, implying safe mutation. Lacks details on side effects, permissions, or exactly how obligations are applied.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two succinct sentences with front-loaded action and no redundant words. Efficiently conveys the core functionality and constraints.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Lacks parameter documentation and return value description. With only optional parameters and no output schema, the description should compensate but does not address these missing pieces.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but description provides no information about the two parameters (as_of_date, db_path). Agent cannot infer their purpose or usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool applies high-confidence recurring candidates as obligations for cash-flow accuracy, specifying criteria (confidence=high, direct-checking, >=3 occurrences), distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle different types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to use (high-confidence candidates with >=3 occurrences) and that everything else stays in review queue. Implies exclusion but does not name specific alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses reading from DB and that persist=true records evaluation, but does not detail side effects, authorization needs, or rate limits. Adequate but not complete.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences, front-loaded with key purpose, no wasted words. Could be more structured, but efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 3 parameters (1 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides core functionality but lacks return format details, as_of_date format, and db_path role. Moderately complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains persist behavior, but as_of_date and db_path are not described. Only one of three parameters gains additional meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it evaluates operating guardrails (cash floor, drift threshold, window age, debt avalanche) and returns findings ordered by severity. It distinguishes from siblings like apply_guardrail_rules (which applies rules) and list_guardrail_findings (which lists existing findings).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for evaluating guardrails, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_guardrail_findings or detect_drift. No guidance on when not to use it or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'import into local storage' without explaining idempotency, duplicate handling, or whether subsequent calls overwrite or append. Critical behavioral traits are missing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences plus a list, efficiently conveying the purpose and required fields. The list could be better integrated, but overall it is concise and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not describe the return value, error handling, or what 'normalized' means. For a tool with a complex array parameter, more detail is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists the expected fields for the 'facts' array (fact_type, date, source, etc.), adding meaning beyond the generic 'additionalProperties: true' schema. However, the 'db_path' parameter is not described, and the structure of each fact object remains vague.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'import' and the resource 'normalized calendar facts' into 'local storage'. The tool name and description together distinguish it from sibling import tools like 'import_todoist_obligations'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states a precondition: 'source-specific calendar import to happen before the call.' This provides clear context for when to use the tool, but does not mention when not to use it or provide alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: idempotency (one batch per day), the dry_run effect, and that no Todoist write ever occurs. It also notes the outbox pattern. However, it does not describe failure modes, error handling, or any side effects beyond the outbox recording.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the core purpose ('Record the day's review batch'), followed by essential detail in three more sentences. At ~60 words, it is concise and every sentence adds value. Slight room to tighten the dry_run explanation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should cover return values and error conditions. It does not. Two parameters (options, db_path) are undocumented, and the tool's effect on the outbox is vague. The agent lacks enough context to handle all inputs or interpret results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Parameter schema coverage is 0%. The description explains 'dry_run' and implicitly refers to 'as_of_date' via 'one batch per day', but provides no detail for 'options' or 'db_path'. 'options' is an open object and 'db_path' is unexplained, leaving two parameters semantically opaque.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool records a review batch in the durable action outbox, is idempotent, and performs no live write. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly noting 'nothing is ever sent to Todoist here', which contrasts with tools like sync_todoist that actually send data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for enqueuing without sending, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not directly compare with sibling tools like 'preview_todoist_review_batch' or 'execute_action_outbox'. The dry_run parameter is explained, but no alternatives are named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, description must disclose behavioral traits. It states idempotency by (kind, source, text), which is key. However, it does not mention other behaviors like persistence guarantees or error handling.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences: first states purpose, second adds critical details (idempotency, kind usage). No unnecessary words, front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It explains kind but omits metadata, source, db_path, and return value behavior. Could be more informative.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% coverage. Description explains 'kind' with examples and mentions idempotency key involving text and source, but does not explain 'metadata', 'db_path', or the full semantics of 'text' and 'source'. Insufficient compensation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it stores a finance memory (correction, decision, fact) with verb 'Store'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_finance_memory, list_finance_memories, and search_finance_memory.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly mentions using 'kind' to scope memories and provides examples. Idempotency information guides safe use. Does not explicitly state when not to use, but sibling differentiation is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: deterministic, idempotent, conservatively defaults (no auto-mark paid, no flag unmatched), skips card-statement-input instances, and records best match as evidence. It adds value beyond just naming the operation, though side effects on data are not explicitly stated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with three sentences. First sentence states purpose, second details properties, third explains defaults. No redundant information; every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers core behavior and defaults, but omits the return value (what the function returns after recording matches) and prerequisites (e.g., obligation instances must exist). For a tool with moderate complexity and no output schema, these omissions reduce completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It adds meaning for the options parameter by describing auto_mark_paid and flag_unmatched_needs_review, but does not explain as_of_date or db_path. Coverage is incomplete for a 3-parameter tool, leaving significant gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool matches expected obligation instances against observed transactions, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like confirm_reconciliation_match and list_matched_obligation_instances by describing its role as the initial matching step that records evidence.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides context on when to use the tool by explaining its deterministic, idempotent nature and conservative defaults, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like confirm_reconciliation_match. It implies usage context but does not state exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: source database is never mutated, a throwaway working DB is used, optional live data pull, and the read pipeline runs returning a report. This is thorough, though it could mention cleanup of the working DB or error handling.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, using three well-structured sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, followed by operational details. No unnecessary words or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description covers the tool's purpose, safety, and basic workflow. However, it lacks detail on the report's format, parameter roles, and post-conditions like cleanup, leaving some gaps for a complex tool with four parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description only hints at the 'sync' parameter with 'optionally pulls live SimpleFIN + Todoist'. It does not explain 'as_of_date', 'db_path', or 'keep_work_db' sufficiently. With low schema coverage, the description should compensate with detailed parameter semantics but falls short.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool validates the pipeline on live data without touching the committed snapshot, using a throwaway copy. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that mutate data (e.g., apply_*, sync_*), making the purpose specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use for validation without side effects, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The context is clear but lacks explicit directives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Despite no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: it only processes a trailing window, does not enter cash-flow projections, does not fabricate payments, and uses the normal reconciliation matcher. This gives the agent good understanding of side effects and limitations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence immediately states the core purpose, followed by clarifying constraints (forward-only, no fabricated payments). Efficient and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and 3 parameters, the description provides sufficient high-level context: what data it processes, what it reconciles against, and what it does not do. Missing details like error handling, performance implications, or idempotency, but overall adequate for a backfill tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description mentions a 'trailing window' which loosely relates to as_of_date and lookback_days, but does not explicitly define any parameter semantics. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but fails to add meaningful details beyond what the schema already shows (names, types, defaults).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool's verb (materialize, reconcile), resource (past-due instances for recurring obligations), and purpose (to answer whether recurring charges cleared). It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying its backward-looking and forward-exclusion behavior.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for reconciling past recurring charges and affects the digest, but it does not explicitly state when to use or when not to use this tool versus alternatives like reconcile_obligation_instances or list_matched_obligation_instances. No exclusions or prerequisites are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, but description fully discloses reading env vars, not returning secrets, upserting, marking deleted, and that it does not write to Todoist. Comprehensive for a read sync.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose. Efficient but could be slightly tighter. Still well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers main behavior but omits behavior for default db_path (null case). No output schema or annotation context, so a bit of gap exists.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter db_path (optional, default null) is not mentioned in the description. With 0% schema coverage, the description fails to add any meaning beyond the schema, which is itself minimal.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it pulls Todoist board into local DB, read-only, and normalizes tasks. It distinguishes from siblings like import_todoist_obligations by syncing the full board.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
States when to use (sync Todoist board) and that it's read-only. Does not explicitly exclude alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, but context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description states it returns a grounding report flagging untraceable numbers and declares the tool is read-only. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well, though it could mention error handling or performance implications.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, front-loading the main purpose and providing necessary context in a single paragraph. It is efficient but could be slightly better structured with separate parameter explanations.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the core functionality well, but lacks details on optional parameters and output format. Given the absence of an output schema and the tool's complexity, more information would be beneficial.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explains that the 'payload' should be a result from get_finance_status or get_daily_digest, adding meaning beyond the schema. However, the optional parameters 'as_of_date' and 'db_path' are not mentioned at all, leaving two of three parameters undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool verifies that headline dollar figures in a finance payload trace to their sources. It specifically references sibling tools like get_finance_status and get_daily_digest, making it distinct from the many other tools in the list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description advises using this tool to verify a finance answer before relying on it, and explicitly notes it is read-only. It provides a clear use case but does not discuss when not to use it or offer alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Given no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the tool reads a legacy markdown, does not modify files, and reports matched/missing/changed obligations with severity and working-cash delta. This provides sufficient transparency into the tool's behavior and non-destructive nature.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two paragraphs, front-loading the purpose and then detailing behavior and outputs. It is concise without unnecessary words, though the structuring could be slightly tighter by grouping related info.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main input and a key output option. It reports the output structure (matched/missing/extra/changed, severity, cash delta) but does not explain all parameters or the output format in detail, leaving some gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'legacy_cashflow_md_path' as the source file and 'render_markdown' for a Markdown summary. However, three parameters (as_of_date, base_year, db_path) are left undescribed, leaving gaps in meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool performs a diff between a legacy cash-flow.md and a new daily digest. It uses specific verbs like 'diff', 'reports', and describes what it reads and does not do, distinguishing it from sibling tools that perform other finance operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage guidance: supply a fresh legacy markdown, and clarifies that it never runs the legacy ritual or writes any legacy file. It does not explicitly list when not to use or provide alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an AI agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool is guarded (requires match), never auto-pays, and is reversible. These are key behavioral traits beyond the obvious mark-paid action. Slightly more detail on side effects or permissions could elevate it, but it is still strong.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: three sentences that front-load the core purpose, then add usage conditions and reversibility. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, no annotations, and two parameters with 0% coverage, the description is incomplete regarding parameter details and return behavior. However, for a simple confirmation tool, the description covers purpose, prerequisites, and reversibility adequately. Missing parameter docs bring it down.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning for the two parameters (instance_id and db_path), but it does not. The description provides no information about what these parameters are, their formats, or how they affect behavior, leaving the schema names to do all the work.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool marks a reviewed obligation instance as paid using a recorded transaction match. It uses a specific verb ('mark') and resource ('obligation instance'), and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'unconfirm_reconciliation_match' by noting reversibility.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly provides usage prerequisites: requires a recorded match (run reconcile first) and notes it never auto-pays. It also mentions the alternative tool for reversal (unconfirm_reconciliation_match), giving clear guidance on when to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden and details key behaviors: dry-run simulation, conditional sending, idempotent updates. It explains what happens in different scenarios, though it could mention if any destructive actions occur outside the outbox.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, with only essential information front-loaded. Each sentence adds distinct value without redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the main behavior is described, the return value or outcome of processing is not mentioned. Additionally, parameter meanings are missing, leaving gaps given no output schema or annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage for parameters, and the description does not explain what 'options' or 'db_path' mean or how they affect behavior. This leaves significant ambiguity for agent usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it processes outbox items, with specific details on dry-run vs pending items and Todoist integration. The verb 'process' and resource 'outbox items' are precise, and it distinguishes itself from siblings like list_action_outbox by implying execution rather than listing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context on when the tool actually sends to Todoist (only when TODOIST_WRITE_ENABLED and configuration exist) and that it is gated off by default. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternative tools for previewing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses idempotency, behavior for completed/deleted/recurring-like tasks, and the data flow. It lacks details on return values, error handling, and side effects beyond DB changes, but covers key behavioral traits adequately.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single paragraph with front-loaded purpose. It efficiently covers multiple edge cases without unnecessary words. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points), but overall concise and informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Input behavior is well-described, but the tool lacks an output schema and the description does not mention return values or error states. For a mutation tool with complex edge cases, this omission reduces completeness. Otherwise, it covers input behavior thoroughly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'tasks' parameter (what it should contain, default behavior). However, 'options' and 'db_path' are left undocumented. Partial addition of meaning, but incomplete for all parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: importing Todoist tasks as canonical one-off obligations. It specifies the source (cashflow-candidate tasks), distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing one-off vs. recurring, and explains idempotency and edge cases.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context on when to use the tool (for importing one-off obligations from Todoist) and implies limitations (local DB as source of truth, only for one-off). It does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to siblings, but the behavioral details offer sufficient guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explicitly states 'Read-only and writes nothing,' which is a key behavioral trait. It also mentions what the output includes (obligation, instances, schedule summary, warnings). Without annotations, this is helpful, though it lacks details on auth or error behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences, front-loading the key point. Every sentence adds value with no waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 6 parameters and no output schema, the description provides a high-level overview but lacks details on return format or parameter interplay. It mentions output components but not their structure, making it adequate but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description does not explain any parameters. With 0% schema description coverage, the agent must infer parameter semantics from context. The description only mentions the overall preview purpose, not how candidate_id, dates, or horizon_days affect the output.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states what the tool does: 'Preview the canonical obligation and dated instances that applying would create.' It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes from siblings like 'apply_charge_onboarding_candidate' by emphasizing it is a read-only preview.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description says 'Use this to show a reviewer exactly what would land in the cash-flow model before committing to apply,' which provides a clear use case. It implicitly guides when to use this tool over the apply tool, but could be more explicit about when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explicitly states that the tool is 'Read-only and sends nothing,' clearly indicating no side effects. It also describes the return value: 'Returns the parent task and per-item subtasks with specific guidance.' Since no annotations are provided, the description fully shoulders the behavioral transparency burden and does so effectively.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (three sentences) and front-loaded with the core action. Each sentence adds meaningful information: what it does, its read-only nature, and what it returns. No extraneous words or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the description covers purpose, read-only behavior, and return structure, it lacks important context: parameter details (especially the free-form 'options' object), prerequisite conditions (e.g., reliance on drift findings from detect_drift), and more precise output format. Without an output schema, additional detail on 'specific guidance' would be helpful. The description is adequate but incomplete for full understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 3 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain 'as_of_date', 'options', or 'db_path'. It only indirectly implies that 'as_of_date' is used for 'the day's review items,' but lacks format details. 'options' and 'db_path' are completely undocumented. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Render the day's review items (drift findings) as a Todoist task + subtasks.' It specifies the action (render), the resource (review items/drift findings), and the output format (Todoist task + subtasks). The tool name and description align, and it is distinguishable from sibling tools like enqueue_todoist_review_batch.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context by stating 'so the user can see the review batch before any write,' suggesting it should be used prior to write operations. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., enqueue_todoist_review_batch), nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses important behaviors: idempotent, never writes canonical obligations, never moves cash flow, and stores durable candidates. Without annotations, it provides good transparency, though it could elaborate on what exactly 'durable candidates' entails in terms of storage and side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Concise and well-structured: first sentence states the action, second provides context, and the last line lists options. No extraneous information, every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity and lack of output schema, the description covers purpose, key behaviors, and options. It could mention how to retrieve the generated candidates (e.g., via 'list_charge_onboarding_queue'), but it's largely complete for a background-discovery tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning to the 'options' parameter by listing supported fields (min_evidence, include_inflows, link_existing_obligations). However, with 0% schema coverage and two parameters, the 'db_path' parameter remains unexplained, so the description only partially compensates for the missing schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool scans transaction history to discover charge-pattern candidates, groups transactions, and stores candidates in a queue. It identifies itself as the background-discovery entry point, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'list_charge_onboarding_queue' and 'apply_charge_onboarding_candidate'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Describes the tool as an entry point and notes idempotency and no writes to obligations or cash movement, implying it's a safe first step. However, it does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives or provide any when-not guidance, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses read-only access to legacy files, dry_run behavior, instance-level dedup, and handling of ambiguous rows. It does not mention error handling or side effects on existing data, but covers key behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: a clear opening sentence explaining purpose, followed by bullet-like details on source types, dedup, dry_run, and read-only behavior. Every sentence contributes essential information without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description does not explain return values or output format, which is a notable gap for a migration tool. It also fails to document two of five parameters. While core behavior is covered, the description is incomplete for full autonomous use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%. The description adds meaning for source (two enumerated values) and dry_run (default previews). However, it ignores path format, options, and db_path parameters, leaving them unexplained. It adds partial value but not enough to compensate for low coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Migrate the complete obligation set from a legacy source into canonical rows.' It specifies verb (migrate), resource (obligation set), and distinguishes from sibling tools like list_obligations (read-only) and apply_obligation_instances (applying instances).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context on when to use the tool (migrating legacy obligations), explains the two source types and their reliability, and mentions dry_run as a safe preview. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explains ordering, default filtering, and parameter usage. No side effects discussed, but it's a read operation. Lacks mention of pagination or limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequately covers ordering and filtering. Missing details on pagination, output format, or behavior of 'limit' and 'db_path'.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains 'status' and 'include_resolved', but not 'limit' or 'db_path'. 'db_path' is unusual and left unexplained, so only half the parameters are covered.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'list' and resource 'charge-onboarding candidates', orders by monthly cash impact, and clearly distinguishes from sibling list tools by focusing on charge-onboarding candidates.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains default behavior (active queue), how to filter by status or include resolved candidates. It does not explicitly state when to use alternatives, but context with siblings makes it clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses that accept/apply/merge/split decisions are rejected, and lists the supported actions. However, it does not describe potential side effects (e.g., overwriting previous decisions), required permissions, or the lifecycle after recording.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences: the first states the primary purpose, the second adds necessary constraints. No redundant information, well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the moderate complexity (nested object params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the main action and exclusions but falls short on parameter details. An agent would need additional context to properly construct the 'decision' object.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides almost no parameter-level guidance. The 'decision' parameter is an object with additionalProperties true, but the description only lists action strings without clarifying the required structure or any additional fields. 'candidate_id' is mentioned only implicitly. This is insufficient for correct invocation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action ('Record a review decision') and resource ('charge-onboarding candidate'). It lists supported actions (defer, reject, needs_more_evidence, in_review, reset) and explicitly differentiates from the sibling tool 'apply_charge_onboarding_candidate' by stating that accept/apply/merge/split are rejected here.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states when to use this tool (for decisions like defer, reject, etc.) and when not to (for accept/apply/merge/split, which are handled by a separate guarded slice). This provides clear guidance on selection versus siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explicitly states 'Read-only' and explains default exclusions, providing behavioral context beyond the input schema. However, it could mention additional traits like data limits or response format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (three sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value, no fluff or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description provides a solid overview of inputs and output components (totals, counts, top buckets, trend, transaction ids). It lacks details on output format and error conditions, but is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's basic behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining most parameters (date range, grouping, exclusion defaults, render_markdown). The db_path parameter is not explained, but it's optional and relatively self-evident.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Summarize outflow spending over a date range' with specific grouping options and output details, distinguishing it from siblings that are more about listing or importing data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context (e.g., excludes transfers and income by default, use render_markdown for markdown output) but does not explicitly name alternatives or specify when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses read-only nature against SimpleFIN, idempotent upsert, reading env var, and return value (counts and warnings). Lacks details on error handling or rate limits, but generally transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Five sentences, front-loaded with main action, each sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema, but description mentions return counts and warnings. Covers main parameters and behavior. Could elaborate on db_path and end_date, but overall sufficient for a sync tool with 5 params.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but description explains start_date, incremental, and lookback_days behavior (e.g., incremental reset when start_date given). However, end_date and db_path are not described. Partially compensates for missing schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it pulls live accounts, balances, and transactions from SimpleFIN into the DB, using specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like sync_todoist or list_statement_cycles.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explains when to use incremental vs start_date, mentions SimpleFIN's 90-day cap, and that incremental resumes from last sync. Does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but provides clear context for choosing parameters.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key traits: idempotent, does not overwrite portal/observed amounts, only recomputes unconfirmed projections, and uses a baseline plus rolled-up modeled card inputs. This gives the agent a thorough understanding of the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is exceptionally concise, with three sentences that front-load the core purpose and then add necessary details. Every sentence adds value—no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and moderate complexity, the description covers the key aspects: conditions, behavior, and idempotency. However, it assumes domain knowledge (e.g., 'card-input rollup') and doesn't explain results or edge cases, leaving minor gaps for a complete understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only mentions 'baseline' without defining it or explaining 'target_obligation_id' or 'db_path.' The term 'baseline' is used but not linked to the parameter, and the other parameters lack any semantic clarification. This leaves significant ambiguity for the agent.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Fill unconfirmed statement estimates from the card-input rollup, guarded.' It specifies the resource (statement estimates) and the action (recomputing) with constraints (only unconfirmed, never overwrite portal/observed). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'list_statement_input_estimates' or 'reconcile_obligation_instances'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear conditions for use: 'Only statement instances whose amount is an unconfirmed projection are recomputed' and 'Portal/observed amounts are never overwritten.' While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, the constraints effectively guide when to use this tool versus others, making the usage context clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description fully handles behavioral disclosure. It explains the scoring, filtering by min_score, capping at k, bounding by max_tokens, and reporting of dropped records. This is comprehensive for a read-only retrieval tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three sentences: first states purpose, second explains the process, third details the result. No redundant information; every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers core behavior (ranking, filtering, capping) and result reporting. However, it omits explanation of 'db_path', 'kind', and 'context policy', and does not describe the return format. This leaves gaps for a complete understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds some value by explaining the overall process (scored, filtered, capped) but does not elaborate on specific parameters like 'kind' or 'db_path'. It adds meaning beyond the schema but not enough to fully compensate for the lack of param descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves relevant finance memories for a query, using a specific verb 'retrieve' and resource 'finance memories'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list_finance_memories' which lists all memories without ranking.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context on when to use the tool: for retrieving memories under a context policy with similarity scoring and filtering. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools like 'list_finance_memories'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
GitHub Badge
Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:
- Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
- Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
- Evaluate tool definition quality.
Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.
Card Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Score Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
MCP directory API
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/albeorla/personal-finance-agent'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server