get_balanceRetrieve account balances with optional filters for account name and period such as this month, a specific date, or a quarter.
Show account balances. Optionally filter by account name pattern and/or period (e.g. 'this month', '2026-08', 'Q1').
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| period | No | ||
| account | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden. It conveys that this is a read/show operation and adds filter behavior (name pattern, period examples), but it does not disclose details like default output when filters are omitted, whether all accounts are included, or how period boundaries are handled. Still, the read-only nature is reasonably clear.
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 compact and front-loaded: the primary purpose is stated first, followed by concise filter guidance. Both sentences add value, and there is no filler.
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?
This is a simple read-only query tool with an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the purpose and both optional parameters adequately. Minor gaps remain around default behavior and explicit sibling differentiation, but the tool can be used correctly from the description alone.
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 compensate. It adds meaningful semantics: 'account' is described as a name pattern, and 'period' is illustrated with concrete examples ('this month', '2026-08', 'Q1'). This goes well beyond the bare parameter names, though exact matching rules remain undefined.
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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Show account balances'. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_register or get_budget, but the resource 'balances' is intuitively distinct from register/budget tools.
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 description implies when to use the tool—when you need account balances—and explains optional filtering by account name pattern or period. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer a sibling tool or state exclusions, leaving routing between alternatives to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.