set_budget_amountSet a budget amount for a spending category by supplying the category ID and dollar value. Adjust budget limits directly.
Set amount for a category_id from get_transaction_categories.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| amount | Yes | ||
| category_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| amount | Yes | ||
| result | Yes | ||
| category_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already signal that this is mutating (readOnlyHint=false), idempotent (idempotentHint=true), and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description confirms the write behavior but adds little beyond that, such as whether an existing amount is overwritten or what errors might occur.
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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the operation and the source for its key parameter with no filler. Every word contributes to understanding how to invoke the tool.
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 low-complexity tool with an output schema and informative annotations, the description covers the essential contract: which category to target and what value to set. Minor gaps around amount semantics and overwrite behavior are not critical for a correct call.
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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It does mention both category_id and amount and usefully states that category_id comes from get_transaction_categories, but it does not clarify amount units/currency or any constraints beyond the schema's type.
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, 'Set', and names the resource, 'amount for a category_id', while tying the category_id to the sibling get_transaction_categories. This makes the write operation clearly distinct from read-only tools like get_budgets and from transaction-editing siblings.
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 a clear prerequisite: the category_id must come from get_transaction_categories. It does not explicitly discuss when to prefer this over alternatives, but no sibling offers a comparable budget-amount update path, so the context is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.