Forecasts month-end expenses from a bank statement based on current spending pace, helping users anticipate remaining costs before the statement period closes.
Прогноз расходов до конца последнего месяца выписки при текущем темпе трат.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 full burden, yet it never states that the tool is read-only / makes no changes, nor what it does if no statement is loaded. It does disclose the calculation basis ('at the current spending rate'), which is genuine 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the forecast horizon and basis both appear immediately.
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 zero-param tool with no output schema, an agent still lacks two things: how 'the last statement month' is determined (implicit dependency on load_statement data) and what the returned forecast looks like. Otherwise adequate.
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?
Zero parameters, so there is nothing for the schema to document and no syntactic detail required. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter gaps exist to compensate for.
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 names a specific verb (forecast/prognosis) and resource (expenses) and bounds the horizon ('until the end of the last statement month at the current spending rate'). It is distinguishable from siblings like spending_by_category or search_transactions, though it never names an alternative explicitly.
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?
There is no statement of when to call this versus the six sibling tools (e.g. after load_statement, or instead of historical spending breakdowns). Usage is only inferable from the word 'forecast' itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.