Retrieves opening and closing balances for a given account and date, so you can verify account status against invoice or transaction records.
Les inngående og utgående saldo på en bestemt dato.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| balance_date | Yes | ||
| account_number | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description only needs to add context. It usefully specifies that the balance is for a particular date and includes both incoming and outgoing balance, but it does not mention permissions, historical limits, or error behavior.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every element contributes to the stated purpose.
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 simple read tool with annotations and no output schema, the description gives the core operation but omits important context about the account parameter and the shape of the returned balance. It is minimally adequate but not complete.
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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains the date aspect (bestemt dato), but says nothing about the required account_number parameter or its expected format.
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 (read) and resource (incoming and outgoing balance) and adds date scope. It clearly differs from the sibling list/get tools, though it does not explicitly explain the per-account focus.
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?
It gives no guidance on when to use this balance lookup versus alternatives such as folio_list_transactions. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-tool routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.