Zen Money MCP

create_account

Create a cash, bank, card, or electronic account by specifying a title, account type, and instrument, with optional balance and credit limit settings.

Instructions

Создать наличный, банковский, карточный или электронный счёт.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "title": "<title>",
      "type": "<type>",
      "instrument": "<instrument>"
    },
    "name": "create_account"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`type`	Yes
`title`	Yes
`savings`	No
`instrument`	Yes
`creditLimit`	No
`openingBalance`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 1, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not meet it. It never states that this is a mutating write, whether openingBalance creates an initial transaction, whether creditLimit is only meaningful for 'ccard', or what happens on duplicate titles.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single compact sentence with no filler and the key noun front-loaded. It is efficient, though efficiency here comes at the cost of under-specification rather than deliberate restraint.

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?

A mutating create tool with 6 parameters, 3 required, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage. The one-line description leaves the agent without the conditional field logic, side effects, or required preconditions needed to call it correctly.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% across 6 parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. Only the 'type' values are hinted at; title, instrument, savings, creditLimit, and openingBalance receive no explanation, and the conditional relationship between 'type' and 'creditLimit' is left undisclosed.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb ('Создать') and resource ('счёт') and enumerates the account kinds (cash, bank, card, electronic), which maps to the type enum. It does not differentiate from siblings like update_account or archive_account, but the create action itself is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus update_account, or on prerequisites such as whether an instrument must already exist (see list_instruments) before an account can be created. The agent must infer the workflow entirely.

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