Housewarden

Record expense

record_expense

Record a household expense by amount and category to update your budget. Optionally add a note, payer, or date for accurate tracking.

Instructions

Records money spent in a category for the budget. Needs the amount and category.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`note`	No	Where or what, e.g. the shop name.
`amount`	Yes	Amount spent, in major units.
`member`	No	Who is asking, if known: a member id or name. Used for per-member policies and the audit trail.
`dry_run`	No	When true, return the preview only. Nothing is written and nothing is queued.
`paid_by`	No	Member name or id who paid.
`category`	Yes	e.g. Groceries, Fuel, School.
`currency`	No	ISO-4217 code; defaults to the household currency.
`occurred_at`	No	When; defaults to now.
`idempotency_key`	No	Optional client-chosen key. Repeating a call with the same key returns the original outcome instead of acting twice.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 21, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations only establish that the tool is non-read-only and non-destructive. The description adds no side-effect detail: it does not mention dry-run previews, idempotency, queuing for confirmation, or audit/member-policy effects, all of which are relevant for a write operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and key prerequisites. There is no filler or redundant material.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Although the output schema exists and parameters are well documented, the description omits the write workflow's notable behaviors: dry-run behavior, queuing/pending confirmation, idempotency, and member-related audit effects. For a 9-parameter mutation tool, this leaves invocation context incomplete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'Needs the amount and category' only repeats required fields already present in the schema and adds no new semantic meaning.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('Records'), a clear resource (money spent in a category for the budget), and the required inputs. It is easy to distinguish from read-only siblings like get_budget_summary or get_household_summary.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor about the pending-action/confirmation workflow hinted at by sibling tools. 'Needs the amount and category' only lists prerequisites, not selection context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.