list_creditsRetrieve a list of recorded credits from the expense tracker, filtering by optional start and end dates to view financial inflows within a specific period.
List credits, optionally filtered by date range (YYYY-MM-DD).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end_date | No | ||
| start_date | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List' implies a read-only operation, and the date-range note adds some behavior context, but the description does not disclose whether unfiltered calls return all credits, how results are ordered, or any response characteristics beyond what the output schema already provides.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes meaning, and the optional date-range behavior is stated immediately after the core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter list tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential call shape. It is incomplete in that it lacks usage guidance and behavior details, but the low complexity and presence of an output schema reduce the burden on the description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds the date format (YYYY-MM-DD) and clarifies that filtering is optional, which helps interpret start_date and end_date. However, it does not explain the exact meaning of each parameter, such as whether the range is inclusive or what an empty default represents.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb-resource pair: 'List credits' with an optional date range. It is specific enough to distinguish from the sibling tools at a basic level, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from related list tools like list_expenses.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_expenses, add_credit, or summarize_expenses. It mentions the optional date filter but does not explain in what scenarios filtering would be appropriate or how it relates to other credit/expense tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.