finance-mcp

by dfrysinger

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct function or domain: accounts, transactions, categories, transfers, subscriptions, budgets, audits, etc. Overlaps are minimal (e.g., multiple audit reports but for different areas) and descriptions are detailed enough to disambiguate.
Naming Consistency5/5
Tool names consistently use snake_case and follow a descriptive noun_verb or noun_noun pattern (e.g., list_accounts, sync_now, budget_burndown). No mixing of conventions or cryptic abbreviations.
Tool Count4/5
22 tools is above average but justified given the broad domain of personal finance (syncing, accounts, transactions, categories, budgets, transfers, subscriptions, audits). Each tool serves a specific purpose; however, a few report tools could potentially be consolidated.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface covers core operations (sync, read, categorize, budget, audit) and advanced features (subscription detection, transfer reconciliation). Missing is the ability to create/update/delete transactions or budgets directly, but the server is primarily analytical, so this is acceptable.
Average 4.1/5 across 22 of 22 tools scored. Lowest: 2.8/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 43 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description states it 'Delete's, implying mutation, but there is no disclosure of side effects, permission requirements, or behavior when the rule_id does not exist. With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but falls short.
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?
The description is a single sentence with no fluff. It is front-loaded and efficient, but the extreme brevity edges toward underspecification rather than conciseness.
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?
While the tool is simple and an output schema exists (though not shown), the description lacks details on success/failure outcomes, idempotency, or any conditions. This is insufficient for an agent to use it confidently without additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds no meaning beyond the parameter name and type. 'by its id' is redundant and does not explain the format, constraints, or source of the rule_id.
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 verb 'Delete' and the resource 'category rule', and specifies the unique identifier as the key parameter. It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'add_category_rule' and 'list_category_rules'.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, error conditions, or context in which deletion is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic function and does not mention any behavioral traits such as authentication needs, data freshness, or computational cost.
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?
The description is a single concise sentence. It could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness, but it is not overly verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. However, for a report tool among many, additional context about the scope or aggregation would improve completeness. The description is adequate but minimal.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has no parameters and schema coverage is 100%. The description correctly implies no input is needed. Baseline is 4 as there is no parameter information to add.
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?
The description clearly states it reports 'category coverage and the breakdown of transactions per category,' which is a specific verb+resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like spending_summary or budget_burndown that may also involve category reporting.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives among the many sibling tools. The description lacks any context for decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so description carries full burden. It only says 'list' (read operation) and 'currently in effect', but lacks details on pagination, data freshness, permissions, or side effects.
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 that is clear and front-loaded. Could add a bit more context without being wordy, but remains efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for a simple list operation with an output schema. However, given 22 sibling tools, some guidance on when to use this tool vs others would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 0 parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. No parameter info is needed, meeting baseline of 4 for zero-param tools.
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 it lists category rules with pattern->category mapping, and specifies 'currently in effect', which is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like add_category_rule and remove_category_rule.
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 is provided on when to use this tool vs its many siblings (22 total). No context about when-not-to-use or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Despite no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: manual overrides override rules and persist across re-syncs. However, it lacks details on side effects, permissions, or error conditions.
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?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the action and context without any wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 3 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description covers purpose and usage but omits parameter semantics and output details, leaving gaps for a complete understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds no parameter-level details. It does not explain txn_id, category, or is_transfer, leaving the agent reliant on parameter names alone.
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 action ('Pin a category to a single transaction') and distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_category_rule by emphasizing manual overrides as one-off fixes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It explains when to use this tool (to fix one-off categorization errors that rules get wrong), but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description only mentions 'cached' but does not explain caching behavior, data staleness, or any side effects. Lacks disclosure of read-only nature or other behavioral traits.
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?
Single sentence that directly states purpose without unnecessary words. Efficiently front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Simple tool with no parameters and output schema present. Description is complete enough for the agent to understand what it returns and when to use it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist, so baseline 4 applies. Description adds no parameter info but none is needed.
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?
Description uses specific verb 'List' and resource 'cached accounts' with what is included (balances, institution). Clearly states the action and scope, distinguishing from sibling tools like account_balances.
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 vs alternatives like account_balances or get_transactions. Missing context such as when to refresh or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a verdict ('ok'/'at_risk'/'balance_unknown'), projected minimum balance, and when at risk the date and shortfall. It implies read-only behavior (forecasting) and does not mention side effects. Adding an explicit statement about non-modification would make it a 5.
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?
The description is concise (two short sentences plus a line about output) and front-loads the core purpose. It avoids unnecessary words. However, it mixes format defaults and output details without clear separation, slightly reducing structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema and the tool's moderate complexity, the description covers purpose, parameter defaults/format, and output fields (verdicts, balances, shortfalls). Missing elements include error conditions, rate limits, or authentication info, but these are not critical for basic usage.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by explaining the date format (YYYY-MM-DD) and default values for 'as_of' and 'through'. However, it does not explain the semantic meaning of the parameters (e.g., 'as_of' as the start of the forecast window). This is adequate but leaves room for improvement.
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 does 'per-envelope sufficiency over a window' to check if each envelope will cover its upcoming bills. This specific verb-resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like 'account_balances' (current balances) and 'spending_summary' (historical spending).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains date format and defaults ('as_of' defaults to today, 'through' to 60 days later) but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The context is clear for basic use but lacks exclusions or alternative directions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description must convey behavior. It states 'report' (read-only), but no mention of side effects, required state (e.g., archive existence), or idempotency. The description is adequate but lacks explicit behavioral detail.
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?
A single sentence of 10 words conveys the essential purpose. It is front-loaded and efficient, with no redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters and an output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool reports. However, it does not specify the scope (e.g., whether it covers all archives or a specific one), which could be clarified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value beyond the schema by specifying the output contains archive size, date coverage, transaction count, and earliest/latest dates, clarifying what the tool returns.
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 reports archive size and date coverage (transaction count, earliest/latest). It uses a specific verb ('report') and resource ('archive stats'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'spending_summary' or 'net_worth_history'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, its unique focus on archive stats implies usage context; it is distinct from other reporting tools. A note on prerequisites or when not to use would improve clarity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses that it reads budget config and archive, returns per-envelope data with unmapped spend, and implies no destructive behavior. Without annotations, this provides good transparency, though could explicitly state it is read-only.
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?
Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, each sentence adds value without waste. Efficient and clearly structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequately explains output (target, actual, remaining, unmapped spend) and edge case. With an output schema present, full return details are not needed. Slightly lacks mention of permissions or limitations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description specifies the 'month' parameter format as YYYY-MM, adding meaning beyond the schema's type string; with 0% schema description coverage, this is valuable context.
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 compares planned target vs. actual spend per envelope for a given month, and mentions it reads budget config and categorized archive, distinguishing it from siblings like budget_forecast or spending_summary.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives; does not mention when-not-to-use or provide selection criteria relative to siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Mentions 'cached account', implying possible staleness, but does not elaborate on caching behavior, auth requirements, or rate limits. Without annotations, description carries full burden; minimal but adequate.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with action, no extraneous words. Every word earns its place, perfectly concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters and existence of output schema, description fully covers the tool's purpose and output. States it returns balances for all cached accounts, which is complete for a simple read tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters; schema coverage is 100% trivially. Baseline score of 4 applies as per guidelines for 0-parameter tools.
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?
Clearly states it returns balance and as-of date for each cached account. Verb 'return' and resource specified, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_accounts which likely return full account details.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives like list_accounts or spending_summary. Implied usage for quick balance checks, but lacks exclusions or alternative tool mentions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: the link is excluded from future reconciles, and only two-leg links can be confirmed. It does not detail error scenarios beyond mentioning rejection.
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?
The description is concise, front-loaded with the main action, and every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the existence of an output schema and the tool's simplicity, the description covers the core behavior and return type. It could mention the output schema structure but is adequate.
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?
The only parameter 'link_id' is only implied by 'by id' but not explicitly described. With 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate, but it does not clarify the meaning or format of the parameter.
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 action ('confirm') and the resource ('transfer link') and explains the effect ('locking the pairing as authoritative'), making it distinct from siblings like 'reconcile_transfers'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides clear context for when to use (to confirm a two-leg link) and a condition (rejection of single-leg links), but does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that transactions are cached (implying potential staleness) and that amounts are signed. However, it lacks details on data freshness, pagination behavior, or error conditions, which would be expected for a query tool.
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?
The description is a single, well-structured paragraph with a clear opening sentence. Each subsequent sentence adds specific value without redundancy. It uses line breaks effectively to separate logical sections, making it easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 10 parameters and no annotations, the description covers essential user-facing filtering but misses details on search, account_id, limit, and include_pending. The caching behavior is mentioned but not elaborated. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the overview remains incomplete for a tool of this complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the semantics of dates (YYYY-MM-DD), amounts (signed), category filtering, and include_transfers. It provides example usage (max_amount=0 for spending). However, it omits explanations for search, account_id, limit, and include_pending, leaving a gap.
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 starts with a specific verb and resource ('Query cached transactions'), immediately clarifying the tool's core function. It details filtering capabilities (dates, amounts, category, transfers) that distinguish it from sibling tools like list_transfers or account_balances.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear guidance on when to use parameters such as max_amount/min_amount for spending/income filtering, and include_transfers to exclude internal transfers. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternatives, the usage context is well-explained.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description discloses that it is a network call, it respects a request budget, and it returns a summary with errors. It implies a cache-update operation. It could add details about side effects or permissions, but it is transparent about key behaviors.
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?
The description is two sentences long, with the first sentence stating the core purpose and the second providing essential behavioral constraints. No superfluous words; front-loaded and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the existence of an output schema (not shown), the description doesn't need to detail return values. It covers the tool's function, budget constraints, parameter behavior, and error handling. Minor gaps: no mention of cache duration or authentication requirements, but overall sufficient for a simple tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explains how the 'days' parameter influences the number of requests: 'a sync of >89 days makes one request per ~89-day window.' This adds behavioral context beyond the schema's basic type and default.
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?
The description clearly states the action: 'Pull fresh data from SimpleFIN into the cache (network call).' It identifies the data source, the action (pull), and the target (cache). While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings, the verb 'sync' and context imply a distinct refresh operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains when to use the tool (to sync data) and provides critical context about respecting SimpleFIN's daily request budget and how the 'days' parameter affects request count. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use the tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description adds value by disclosing that loan/credit balances are negative, data is from the archive, and each sync records a snapshot. It does not cover data freshness or time range limits, but the core behavioral traits are well explained.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds value. No redundancy or wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists, so return value details are handled. The description covers purpose, data source, and key behavioral aspects. It could mention if there are any constraints (e.g., date range limits), but given no input params, it is reasonably complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters with 100% description coverage, so the description need not add parameter information. The baseline of 4 is appropriate as the description effectively communicates that no parameters are needed.
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 it provides total balance across all accounts per as-of date, building a net-worth trend over time. It differentiates from siblings like 'account_balances' by focusing on historical snapshots, not current balances.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use for historical net worth trend analysis but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'account_balances' or 'spending_summary'. No exclusions or alternative names are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It details each output section (tracked, expected_missing, candidate_new) and discloses that candidate_new is advisory. It does not mention any destructive behavior, which is fine for a report. Slight room for improvement: clarifying that it is read-only.
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?
The description is somewhat lengthy but well-structured: first sentence states purpose, then parameter details, then output breakdown. Every sentence adds value, but it could be slightly more concise without losing clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the output schema exists (though not shown in full), the description explains return values in detail: tracked is full roster, expected_missing is deterministic alert, candidate_new is advisory. All parameters (0 required) are covered, and the tool's behavior is fully described. No gaps for this report-type tool.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains end (defaults to today), start (defaults to a year back), and min_occurrences in context. However, 'day_tolerance' is not mentioned, leaving one parameter unexplained. The YYYY-MM-DD format is given, adding value.
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's purpose: to flag tracked bills that didn't post and surface untracked recurring merchants as candidates for judgment. The verb 'flag' and 'surface' with specific resources (tracked bills, untracked merchants) distinguish this from siblings like subscriptions_detect.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage guidelines are provided: explanations of date defaults, min_occurrences, and the advisory nature of candidate_new. The description tells the assistant to decide real subscriptions from candidates. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use the tool vs alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses exclusions of transfers/income by default, explains net calculation, and covers edge cases like unmapped envelopes and errors. Minor omission: no mention of rate limits or permissions.
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?
The description is well-structured with purpose first, then parameter details. Every sentence adds value, though slightly verbose in places. Front-loads key information effectively.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 6 parameters, no required, and output schema exists, the description covers group_by nuances and output fields. Missing details on date range defaults and include_pending behavior, but overall sufficient for agent understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description compensates well. It fully explains group_by options and output semantics (outflow, inflow, net, unclassified_inflow). It does not detail date or boolean parameters but schema provides defaults.
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 aggregates net spending over a date range for budgeting, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_transactions and account_balances.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for budgeting by date range with grouping, and through sibling context suggests when to use alternatives. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use statements but provides clear context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses idempotency (skips already tracked merchants), mutation (writes to config, creates if missing), date formats, defaults, and cadence restrictions. It also explains edge cases like unsupported cadence and needs_review. Comprehensive coverage.
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?
Description is a single paragraph, front-loaded with the main action. It efficiently packs necessary details without excessive fluff. Minor redundancy ('so your subscriptions become a saved list...') but overall concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 4 parameters, no required ones, no annotations, and an output schema that exists but is not shown, the description covers core functionality, defaults, and edge cases. It mentions outputs (`unsupported_cadence`, `needs_review`) but lacks detail on output structure. Missing `min_occurrences` explanation slightly reduces completeness.
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%, so description must add meaning. It explains `end`, `start`, and `day_tolerance` with defaults and format. However, it omits `min_occurrences` (default 3) entirely, leaving its role unclear. Thus partially compensates but has a clear gap.
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?
Description clearly states the tool detects recurring charges and saves them as tracked bills. It specifies the resource (history, merchants) and action (detect, save), distinguishing it from siblings like subscription_audit_report (likely read-only) and subscriptions_mark (likely manual).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Description explains when to use the tool for automatic detection and saving of subscriptions. It clarifies that weekly/yearly merchants go to 'unsupported_cadence' and ambiguous ones to 'needs_review', providing context on limitations. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description effectively discloses idempotency, preservation of confirmed links, recomputation of the rest, and the return format (counts of inferred/needs-confirm/unmatched plus promotions/downgrades). It could mention any potential side effects or resource usage, but overall it is transparent.
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?
The description is extremely concise: three sentences with no wasted words. The purpose, idempotency, and usage timing are front-loaded. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no parameters and an output schema (though not shown), the description explains the return counts and when to use the tool. It could elaborate on 'promotions and downgrades' but is still sufficiently complete for an agent to decide.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100% irrelevant. The description adds context about the tool's behavior and return values, which is valuable beyond the trivial schema.
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 explicitly states the tool rebuilds internal-transfer links from the archive and is idempotent. It distinguishes from siblings like confirm_transfer (for individual confirmation) and list_transfers (for viewing), making the purpose clear and specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It advises running after a sync so list_transfers reflects latest data, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternatives by name, which would make it a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description thoroughly explains the consequences of marking lifecycle (audit behavior changes) and the effect of the variable flag on matching. It lacks mention of error handling, idempotency, or permissions, but given no annotations, it provides substantial transparency.
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?
The description is well-structured with the main action first, then detailed explanations for each parameter. It avoids unnecessary details but could be streamlined slightly. Overall efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the main functionality, parameter details, and effects on audit. With an output schema present, it doesn't need to detail return values. It lacks mention of potential errors (e.g., if name doesn't match exactly one), but overall is contextually adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds complete semantics for all four parameters: explains valid values for lifecycle, format and conditional requirement for cancel_effective, and three-way behavior for variable. This fully compensates for the 0% schema 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's action (mark lifecycle status) and differentiates from sibling tools like subscriptions_detect and subscription_audit_report by focusing on lifecycle management. It uses specific verb 'mark' and specifies the resource and possible states.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description details when to use each lifecycle state (canceling, canceled, active) and provides context for cancel_effective and variable. It lacks explicit mention of when not to use or alternative tools, but the context is sufficient for usage decisions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, but description thoroughly discloses behavior: audits each debt account, defines red flags (returned payments, net zero/negative months), downgrading to made_good, and unauditable note for balance-only sync.
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?
Description is detailed but well-structured; each sentence adds value. Could be slightly more concise, but it's informative and clear.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of the report (multiple edge cases) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary behavioral and usage details, including parameter semantics.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Single parameter 'as_of' with 0% schema coverage; description adds format (YYYY-MM-DD), default (today), and purpose, which is essential for correct invocation.
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?
Clearly states it provides 'loud alerts for debt payments that were returned or missed.' Distinguishes itself from siblings like account_balances, spending_summary, and subscription_audit_report by specifying debt-focused alerting.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explains when to use (check for missed/returned debt payments) and conditions (no debt accounts leads to empty report). Lacks explicit when-not-to-use but context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully covers behavioral traits: priority lowest-wins, default substring matching, absolute amount bounding, day-of-month bounds, and is_transfer exclusion from totals. It is thorough and accurate.
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?
The description is appropriately sized (~150 words), with a clear first sentence stating the core function, followed by organized explanations of key parameters. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of 11 parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description thoroughly covers all usage aspects, leaving no ambiguity for an AI agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description adds substantial meaning to all 11 parameters, including field options, priority behavior, match mode, and predicate semantics (e.g., amount bounds use abs(amount)). This far exceeds baseline requirements.
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 that the tool adds a category rule with a merchant match and optional predicates mapping to a category. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like list_category_rules and remove_category_rule by focusing on creation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear guidance on when to use specific parameters (e.g., is_transfer for internal transfers, account_id for scoping, match_mode for regex). However, it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools like set_transaction_category, which could be an alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, but description fully explains reconstruction, status meanings, and sorting order with no contradictions.
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, well-structured paragraphs with no wasted words; front-loads the key purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the single parameter and presence of output schema, the description provides all necessary context for a listing tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Only parameter 'status' is explained with possible values and their implications, compensating for 0% schema 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 it lists reconstructed transfer links in a specific format, distinguishing it from siblings like confirm_transfer.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides clear context for status filtering and behavior (e.g., unconfirmed sort first), but does not explicitly compare to alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: date defaults, drift tolerance, and ambiguity handling. It also implies read-only audit behavior without stating destructive actions.
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?
Three concise sentences: purpose, parameter explanation, ambiguity note. No fluff, well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the output schema exists, the description adequately covers the report content and edge cases. It is complete for the tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description explains all three parameters: end and start defaults/formats, day_tolerance as drift threshold. It adds meaning beyond the schema.
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 audits scheduled transfers to check if they fired on time, late, early, or not at all. It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like confirm_transfer.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains date format, default values, and day_tolerance meaning. It also mentions when an allocation surfaces as missing and directs to confirm_transfer for resolution, providing explicit when-to-use and alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![finance-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/dfrysinger/finance-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/dfrysinger/finance-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![finance-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/dfrysinger/finance-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/dfrysinger/finance-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/dfrysinger/finance-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server