Zen Money MCP

summarize_spending

Summarize income and expenses for a date range by currency and category, keeping each currency separate so totals remain accurate.

Instructions

Свести доходы и расходы за период по валюте и категории. Валюты не складываются между собой.

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": {
      "fromDate": "<fromDate>",
      "toDate": "<toDate>"
    },
    "name": "summarize_spending"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`toDate`	Yes
`fromDate`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 1, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that currencies are never summed together, but says nothing about read-only nature, whether transfers or hidden categories are included, or how the result is shaped. The one rule given is valuable but far from sufficient coverage.

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, zero filler, with the operation front-loaded and the currency caveat immediately after it.

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?

For a no-annotation aggregation tool with no output schema, the description never explains what comes back (totals per currency and category, counts, sign conventions) or whether all transaction types are counted. An agent can pick the tool but cannot predict its result.

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 coverage is 0%, but both parameters are self-describing date names with a regex pattern fixing the YYYY-MM-DD format. The description confirms the 'period' semantics of the pair but does not state inclusivity, ordering, or timezone, so the compensation is only partial.

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 concrete verb+resource: aggregate income and expenses over a period, grouped by currency and category. That is precise and clearly distinct from sibling list_/get_ tools. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling to use instead of a full transaction listing.

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 on when to use this versus list_transactions or list_budgets, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The aggregation use case is only implied by the verb 'Свести'.

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