Group debit transactions by category to see spending totals. Filter by account or date range for targeted insights.
Group debit transactions by category and return totals.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | No | Partial account name filter | |
| end_date | No | YYYY-MM-DD | |
| start_date | No | YYYY-MM-DD |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"v2.3.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds meaningful behavior: it only includes debit transactions and produces grouped totals. It does not mention sorting or exact output shape, but for a read-only aggregation the provided scope is sufficient.
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 description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the action and the expected result. Every word earns its place and there is no filler or repetition of schema details.
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?
For a read-only aggregation tool with all-optional parameters, no output schema, and clear parameter descriptions, the description is largely complete. Explicitly stating the return format would improve it, but 'return totals' already gives sufficient orientation.
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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The tool description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 description states a specific verb ('Group'), the resource ('debit transactions'), the grouping dimension ('by category'), and the result ('return totals'). The category focus clearly distinguishes it from siblings like ck_get_spending_by_merchant and ck_get_account_summary.
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 intended use is implied: call it when you need debit spending totals grouped by category. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no exclusions, so the agent must infer the right scenario.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.