Retrieve a monthly budget executive summary: income, expenses, savings rate, category totals, and funds left to budget.
Executive summary of the budget showing totals by category group, total income, total expenses, savings rate, and to-be-budgeted for a given month.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| month | No | Month (YYYY-MM or natural language). Defaults to current month. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint=true annotation is consistent with the description, and the description goes beyond the annotation by specifying the output fields and the monthly grain. It does not cover edge cases like months with no budget data, but for a read-only summary the main behavioral contract is present.
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 sentence with no filler, front-loading the core concept ('Executive summary of the budget') before a tight list of the included metrics. Every phrase contributes to the agent's understanding.
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?
With one optional parameter, a read-only annotation, and no output schema, the description covers the core call contract: what to pass and what comes back. It does not specify currency units or the exact format of values, and the default-month behavior is only in the schema, but these are minor gaps for a summary tool.
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?
The input schema fully documents the only parameter, month, including format and default behavior. The description only repeats 'for a given month' and adds no additional semantic or formatting detail, so the baseline score of 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 clearly identifies the resource (budget) and the operation shape (an executive summary for a given month), and enumerates the key metrics returned. It is distinguishable from transaction-level tools, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from similarly named siblings like monthly_summary or get_budget_month.
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 gives no guidance about when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as monthly_summary, get_budget_month, or budget_vs_actual, and it names no exclusions. The phrase 'executive summary' weakly implies high-level use, but the agent is left to infer the selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.