get_expenseRetrieve complete expense details by ID, including pre-tax and tax-inclusive amounts, VAT, category, recurrence, and effective cost after prorated allocation.
Retourne le détail complet d'une charge par son identifiant : montant TTC/HT, TVA, catégorie, type de récurrence, flag dédié et montant effectif après application de la quote-part si non dédié.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| expense_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true; the description adds field-level details including the effective amount after quote-part logic, which is beyond the annotation. It does not discuss error cases or permissions, but for a read operation with annotation coverage, this is acceptable.
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?
A single sentence with a colon-led list; it's dense but informative, and the main purpose is front-loaded.
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 description enumerates the key return fields (TTC/HT, TVA, category, recurrence, flag, effective amount), which compensates for the absence of an output schema. It doesn't address not-found behavior, but for a simple get-by-id tool it is reasonably 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?
The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description only states 'par son identifiant' (by its identifier), which merely restates the parameter name expense_id. It doesn't explain the ID's source, format, or constraints, failing to compensate for the schema gap.
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 the specific verb 'Retourne' (returns) targeting resource 'charge' (expense) by its identifier, and enumerates the fields returned, clearly distinguishing it from list/create/update/delete expense 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 context is clear: use when you need the full detail of a single expense given its ID. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like list_expenses, but the 'par son identifiant' scoping implies singular fetch.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.