WhatsMyBudgetMCP

analytics_period_overview

Read-only

Retrieve total spending and transaction count for a named statement period to review monthly or billing period activity.

Instructions

Get statement period totals and transaction count. Before calling: Call analytics_periods_list first to confirm the requested period exists. If missing, ask the user to choose from available periods. When to use: Use for a named statement period total and count, especially when the user says a month or billing period. Trigger words: statement period, period total, monthly overview, april 2026, month spend

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "period": "<period>"
    },
    "name": "analytics_period_overview"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`period`	Yes
`paymentMethod`	No
`account`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 23, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description's statement about getting totals and count is consistent. No additional behavioral traits are disclosed beyond what annotations imply.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise, with essential usage guidance and trigger words. One unnecessary redundancy: 'Trigger words' list could be more concise, but overall efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description lacks details about what totals are returned (e.g., currency, categories) and does not fully explain all parameters. The prerequisite guidance adds value but completeness is moderate.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for parameter meanings. However, it only implicitly mentions 'period' and does not explain 'paymentMethod' or 'account' fields.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states 'Get statement period totals and transaction count,' which is a clear verb and resource. It distinguishes from many sibling period tools that focus on specific aspects like categories or daily breakdowns.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides explicit before-call guidance to call analytics_periods_list first and ask user for available periods if missing. Also gives when-to-use criteria and trigger words for the agent.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.