Record an income transaction in ZenMoney by specifying the account, amount, and date, with optional payer, category, and comment details.
Add an income transaction to ZenMoney.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | Yes | Transaction date in YYYY-MM-DD format | |
| payee | No | Payer name | |
| amount | Yes | Income amount (positive number) | |
| account | Yes | Account name or UUID to credit | |
| comment | No | Transaction comment | |
| category | No | Category name or UUID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It signals a write operation only via 'Add' — no mention of permissions/auth, whether it mutates account balances, duplicate handling, or what is returned.
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 zero filler. It is efficient, though arguably too terse for a six-parameter mutation tool rather than genuinely well-sized.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no annotations, no output schema, and six parameters including money movement between accounts, the definition is materially incomplete. It should at least explain the effect on the credited account and any prerequisite lookups.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all six parameters (date format, positive amount, account UUID, payee, category, comment) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource ('Add an income transaction') and names the target system (ZenMoney). The 'income' qualifier implicitly separates it from add_expense and add_transfer, though it never names those siblings 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?
No guidance on when to use this versus add_expense, add_transfer, or update_transaction, and no prerequisites (e.g., account must exist, use list_accounts first). The agent must infer the routing decision entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.