get_money_movement_groups_by_monthRetrieve a month's budget reallocation batches to see how funds were moved between categories. Use it to review money movement groups for a specific YNAB budget month.
Get budget reallocation batches for one month.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| month | Yes | YYYY-MM-DD, first of month, or 'current' | |
| budgetId | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v6.1.0Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Input schema / properties / budgetId / descriptionRemoved value: -"Budget ID (uses default if not provided)"Input schema / properties / month / descriptionPrevious value: -"Month in YYYY-MM-DD format (first of month), or 'current'"New value: +"YYYY-MM-DD, first of month, or 'current'"Output schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"v5.4.0Output schema / properties / result / descriptionRemoved value: -"Structured result returned by Get Money Movement Groups By Month."v5.2.0v5.1.1v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds only the one-month scoping constraint and says nothing about ordering, pagination, or how the groups are structured, though the output schema likely covers return shape.
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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though its terseness contributes to the broader under-specification.
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 output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but the description still lacks sibling differentiation and any guidance on the optional budgetId. For a tool with multiple overlapping siblings, this leaves meaningful ambiguity.
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 50%: the 'month' parameter is documented in the schema (format and 'current'), while 'budgetId' has no description anywhere. The description's 'for one month' merely restates the required parameter and does not compensate for the undocumented budgetId.
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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Get budget reallocation batches') plus a scope ('for one month'), so the basic action is discernible. However, 'budget reallocation batches' is a non-obvious paraphrase of 'money movement groups', and the description never distinguishes this from close siblings like list_money_movement_groups or get_money_movements_by_month.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus list_money_movement_groups (all groups) or get_money_movements_by_month (individual movements). The agent is left to infer the distinction from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.