Append income or expense transactions to financials.json to track company finances. Add type, category, amount, and description for each record.
Append an income or expense transaction to financials.json.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | Yes | ||
| amount | Yes | ||
| category | Yes | ||
| description | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two meaningful behavioral facts — that the operation is additive ('append', not overwrite) and that state is persisted to financials.json — but says nothing about permissions, validation failures, or duplicate handling.
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 tightly written sentence with the verb and target front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though almost too terse to carry the needed guidance.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but for an unannotated mutation tool with four undocumented required parameters the description is too thin. Persistence target is given but usage context, prerequisites, and parameter meaning are all missing.
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% across four required parameters. The description only echoes the type enum ('income or expense') and adds no meaning for category format, amount constraints, or description content, so it fails to compensate for the 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?
States a specific verb (append) plus resource (income or expense transaction) and the target artifact (financials.json). An agent can tell it is a financial-entry writer, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling mutation tools like update_company_notes or migrate_company_data.
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 no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. With ten sibling tools in the same company-data family, the absence of routing guidance leaves the agent to infer context entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.