Retrieve the balance and spending history for a specific category across one or more months to track budget performance and inform spending decisions.
Get the balance and spending history for a specific category across one or more months.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| months | No | Number of months to look back (default 3) | |
| category | Yes | Category name or ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, aligning with the 'Get' verb. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond that—it does not mention output format, whether the current month is included, or how historical data is aggregated. With annotations covering the safety profile, a score of 3 is appropriate because the description adds only marginally to what is already explicit.
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 key purpose (balance and spending history) and scope (specific category, months). No filler or redundant phrasing; every element contributes to 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?
The tool has no output schema, so the description should clarify the return structure. It says 'balance and spending history' but does not specify the format (e.g., array of monthly breakdowns, total balance, etc.). Given the low complexity and that params are fully documented, the gap is moderate—gaps exist for return shape and possible edges like months=0 or negative numbers. This is adequate but not complete.
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%—both 'category' and 'months' are described (including the default for months). The description adds no additional meaning beyond echoing the influence of months ('across one or more months') and does not explain edge cases like month boundaries. Per the baseline for high schema coverage, a 3 is correct.
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 (get), resource (balance and spending history for a category), and scope (across one or more months). It is clear and distinguishes from the broad get_transactions or get_budget_summary, though it overlaps semantically with spending_by_category, category_trends, and balance_history without explicitly differentiating the exact meaning of 'balance' or 'spending history'.
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 a use case (querying a specific category over months) but offers no comparison to sibling tools like spending_by_category, category_trends, or balance_history. It does not state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. The context is clear enough, but guidance is missing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.