Retrieve expense records filtered by date range, category, or payment source to review and analyze spending.
List expense records, optionally filtered by date range, category, or source
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | End date (YYYY-MM-DD) | |
| from | No | Start date (YYYY-MM-DD) | |
| limit | No | Max results (default: 100) | |
| sourceId | No | Filter by payment source ID | |
| categoryId | No | Filter by category ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. 'List' implies a non-destructive read operation, and the filter dimensions are stated, but ordering, pagination behavior beyond the limit default, and date-boundary semantics are not disclosed. Acceptable but thin.
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 one concise sentence that leads with the core action and resource, then lists the optional filters. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or 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?
For a simple read-only list operation with no required parameters and full schema coverage, the description is largely complete. It could mention result ordering or pagination, but the essential information needed to select and invoke the tool is present.
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 coverage is 100%, with all five parameters already described. The description reinforces the date/category/source filtering intent but adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema provides. A 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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('expense records'), and names optional filters (date range, category, source). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_spending, update_spending, delete_spending, and list_incomes.
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 makes it clear that this tool is for retrieving expense records and optionally narrowing results by filters. It does not explicitly exclude alternative tools like get_spending_analytics, but the intent is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.