Split a single transaction into multiple categories or accounts by specifying each split's amount, type, and parties.
Create a single transaction divided into multiple splits (e.g., one receipt with different categories).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| splits | Yes | ||
| group_title | No | Optional title for the transaction group. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates a transaction but does not mention side effects, required permissions, whether splits must balance, or any other operational constraints. The description is minimal and does not add meaningful behavioral context beyond the action itself.
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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and purpose. There is no redundancy or waste. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity, though it could have added more detail without becoming verbose.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (nested splits array, multiple required fields, no output schema), the description is severely under-specified. It does not explain how splits are structured, whether there are balancing constraints, or what the response indicates. The description leaves critical gaps for correct invocation.
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 only 50% (only group_title has a description), and the description itself adds no detail about the splits array or its fields. It mentions 'multiple splits' but does not explain the structure, required fields, or how amounts and types interact. The description fails to compensate for the sparse schema descriptions, leaving the agent without adequate parameter semantics.
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 action (create), the resource (a single transaction), and the distinguishing feature (divided into multiple splits). The example 'one receipt with different categories' further clarifies the use case, and the name itself differentiates it from the sibling create_transaction. This is specific and unambiguous.
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 provides a clear usage context through the example of splitting a receipt into categories, implying when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or how it differs from create_transaction, though the name and description make the intent clear. The guidance is sufficient but not exhaustive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.