expense.listLists income, expense, and purchasing records with filters for type, category, project, keyword, and date range to help agents retrieve and review transactions.
列出记账（收支）记录，可按类型/分类/项目/关键词/日期区间筛选。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | 结束日期（毫秒时间戳） | |
| from | No | 起始日期（毫秒时间戳） | |
| type | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| keyword | No | ||
| category | No | ||
| projectId | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations supply readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered, but the definition adds nothing about what the call returns. It is silent on default page size, sort order (newest first?), whether an omitted filter means 'all records' rather than 'none', and whether results are capped by the undocumented limit parameter.
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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence: verb plus resource first, then the filter capabilities. Nothing is wasted or repeated.
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 seven parameters, no output schema, and no annotation hints beyond read-only, the definition gives enough context to construct a filtered call but not enough to predict the response: record count, ordering, and result-shape are all unstated. It is adequate, but it has clear gaps.
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 only 29%, so the definition must compensate, and it largely does: it enumerates 类型/分类/项目/关键词/日期区间, mapping six of the seven parameters to human-readable meanings that the schema leaves bare (category, keyword, projectId, and the from/to pair). It does not explain limit, which is the one dimension left undocumented.
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 definition names a specific verb (列出) and resource (记账记录), and enumerates the filter dimensions. However, it does not differentiate the tool from sibling list tools such as purchase.list and recurring.list, and the parenthetical (收支) omits the 采购 type that the enum actually supports, leaving the reader to infer that 'purchase' records live in a separate tool.
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 definition gives no when-to-use guidance and no exclusions. It never says to use purchase.list for 采购 records or analytics.summary when aggregated totals are wanted, even though several sibling tools operate on overlapping data.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.