Skip to main content
Glama

Profile spendings

items_post_account_spendings
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a detailed report of account spendings grouped by service type (VAS, CPA, tariff, etc.) for a specified date range. Filter by category, location, or listings to analyze spending patterns.

Instructions

Returns a REPORT of the profile's spendings over a period by service type (post_account_spendings) — how much was spent on vas/cpa/tariff, etc. Read-only, spends no money (only shows already incurred spending). Period dateFrom..dateTo (YYYY-MM-DD). Note: grouping here is a STRING "day"|"week"|"month" (NOT an object, unlike items_post_item_analytics). Data depth no more than 270 days, no more than 1 request per minute. Required: dateFrom, dateTo, spendingTypes, grouping.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dateFromYesStart of the period, inclusive (YYYY-MM-DD); no more than 270 days back.
dateToYesEnd of the period, inclusive (YYYY-MM-DD).
spendingTypesYesSpending types for the report (at least 1): vas, perf_vas, lf, cv, tariff, subscription, cpa, bundle.
groupingYesGroup spendings by period — a string (required): day (by day), week (by week), month (by month).
filterNoOptional selection filters: categoryIDs — category IDs, itemIDs — listing IDs, locationIDs — location IDs. employeeIDs is NOT supported here. Without the filter — spendings of the entire profile.
user_idNoID of the owner user. Defaults to Profile_id from .env.
Behavior5/5

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

The description reinforces the annotations by stating 'Read-only, spends no money' and adds critical behavioral details such as data depth limit and rate limit, which are not covered by the annotations.

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 efficient with two sentences that front-load the main purpose and key constraints. The second sentence is dense but clear. Could be slightly more structured, but overall concise.

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 complexity (6 parameters, nested filter, no output schema), the description covers the essential context: purpose, required params, constraints, and a sibling comparison. It lacks explicit details about the report format, but the phrase 'Returns a REPORT' sufficiently indicates the output type.

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?

Adds significant value beyond the schema: clarifies that grouping is a string (not an object), specifies required parameters, explains date format, and notes that employeeIDs are not supported in the filter. Schema coverage is 100% but the description enhances understanding.

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 that the tool returns a report of profile spendings by service type, and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool items_post_item_analytics by noting the grouping type difference. The title 'Profile spendings' reinforces the purpose.

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?

Explicitly mentions required parameters, rate limits (1 request per minute), data depth (270 days), and a comparison with a sibling tool. However, it does not provide a comprehensive list of alternatives or explicitly state when not to use this tool.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

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/elchin92/avito-mcp'

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