Pocketsmith MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

pocketsmith_get_trend_analysis

Analyze financial trends across categories and scenarios over a specified time period, using customizable intervals and date ranges to identify spending patterns.

Instructions

Get trend analysis across categories and scenarios

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": {
      "start_date": "<start_date>",
      "end_date": "<end_date>"
    },
    "name": "pocketsmith_get_trend_analysis"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`period`	No	The period for trend analysis (default: months)
`interval`	No	The interval for the period (default: 1)
`start_date`	Yes	Start date for trend analysis (YYYY-MM-DD)
`end_date`	Yes	End date for trend analysis (YYYY-MM-DD)
`categories`	No	Category IDs to filter by
`scenarios`	No	Scenario IDs to filter by

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Feb 17, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided; description does not disclose behavioral traits (e.g., read-only, data aggregation method, or limits), leaving agents uninformed about side effects or constraints.

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?

Single sentence is concise and front-loaded, but could be expanded with minimal context without sacrificing brevity.

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?

No output schema and no annotations; description fails to explain return format, aggregation logic, or usage context, leaving significant gaps for effective tool invocation.

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 covers all 6 parameters with descriptions; the tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves trend analysis across categories and scenarios, distinguishing it from sibling tools focused on transactions, accounts, and budgets.

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 tool versus alternatives like list_transactions or budget_summary; lacks context for preferred use cases.

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