Record a new income entry with amount, date, source, and optional notes. Use valid source IDs from list_spending_sources to categorize income correctly.
Record a new income entry. Use list_spending_sources to get valid source IDs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | Yes | Date (YYYY-MM-DD) | |
| name | Yes | Income description | |
| income | Yes | Amount received | |
| sourceId | Yes | Source ID | |
| description | No | Additional notes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It correctly implies a write operation, but doesn't disclose duplication behavior, required authentication, or whether amount should be positive. The tool is described only as 'record,' which is minimal beyond the title.
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?
Two short sentences, no wasted words. The prerequisite hint is placed after the main action, which is effective and front-loaded enough.
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 create operation with fully described parameters, this is adequate. However, no output schema exists, and without annotations the description doesn't mention what the tool returns or any side effects. Given the low complexity, it's a passable but not rich definition.
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 100%, so parameters are already documented (date, name, income, sourceId, description). The description adds value by pointing to list_spending_sources for sourceId, but doesn't explain 'income' formatting or required constraints beyond what the schema offers. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 ('Record') and resource ('new income entry'), so the purpose is clear. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling create_spending, but the name and resource differ enough to infer intent.
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 a direct usage hint: 'Use list_spending_sources to get valid source IDs.' This tells the agent what prerequisite to call before invoking. However, it doesn't explicitly say when not to use this tool or compare to alternatives, so it's a clear but partial guideline.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.