summarize_expenses_expenses_summarize_getAggregate expenses by category within a date range. Provide start and end dates to see spending totals by category and track where your money goes.
Summarize expenses by category.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| category | No | ||
| end_date | Yes | ||
| start_date | Yes |
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it says almost nothing. It does not disclose whether this is a read-only aggregation, how dates bound the result, whether zero-expense categories appear, or what permissions are needed. The only behavioral hint is the 'by category' grouping.
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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of filler, so it is concise. But at this length it is under-specified rather than efficient, so it earns only a middling score.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be documented. Everything else is missing: no annotations, three undocumented parameters, no usage context, and no distinction from the sibling list tool, leaving the agent with little to call this correctly.
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 and largely does not. It names 'category' but leaves its semantics unresolved (filter vs. grouping key) and says nothing about the required start_date/end_date formats or whether the range is inclusive.
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 verb 'Summarize' and resource 'expenses' are clear, and 'by category' hints at grouping. However, it is ambiguous whether the 'category' parameter filters the data or is the grouping dimension, and it never contrasts itself with the sibling list_expenses_expenses_get, which is the obvious alternative for raw data.
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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives such as list_expenses_expenses_get, and no prerequisites stated. The agent must infer that this is the aggregated-view counterpart to the list tool purely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.