Project end-of-month spending per category from current daily rate and warn about categories likely to exceed budget.
Project end-of-month spending for each category based on the current daily spending rate. Warns about categories likely to exceed budget.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| month | No | Month to project (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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: the projection is based on the current daily spending rate, and the tool proactively warns about categories likely to exceed budget. It does not contradict the annotation.
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 sentences with no filler. The core purpose and distinguishing warning behavior are front-loaded, and every word contributes to the definition.
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 one optional parameter and a well-covered schema, the description is largely complete for tool selection and invocation. It explains the methodology and the warning behavior, though it does not detail the shape of the returned projection since no output schema exists.
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%, including a clear description for the 'month' parameter. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 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 names a specific verb ('Project'), a clear resource (end-of-month spending per category), and a distinct computation basis (current daily spending rate). It also includes the warning behavior, which differentiates it from siblings like spending_by_category and budget_vs_actual.
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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you need a forward-looking spending projection based on the current pace, plus budget-exceedance warnings. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the context is sufficiently clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.