get_overspent_categoriesList negative-balance categories for a month, including prior overspending that reduces current Ready to Assign.
List negative-balance categories for a month, including prior overspends reducing current Ready to Assign.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| month | Yes | YYYY-MM-DD, first of month | |
| 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)"New value: +"YYYY-MM-DD, first of month"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 Overspent Categories."v5.2.0v5.1.1v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds useful semantic context that prior overspends can reduce current Ready to Assign, but it does not describe pagination, result ordering, or other behavioral details.
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. The resource and scope appear immediately, followed by the key semantic clarification.
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. However, the undocumented budgetId parameter and lack of guidance around budget scoping leave a meaningful gap for an agent invoking the tool.
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 only 50%: the month parameter is documented as YYYY-MM-DD first of month, but budgetId has no schema description. The description says "for a month" but does not explain whether budgetId is optional, what budget it defaults to, or how budget scoping works.
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, "List", and a precise resource, "negative-balance categories", scoped to a month. It clearly differs from broader siblings like list_categories or get_category, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.
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 month scoping implies when the tool is useful, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose it over list_categories, get_month_category, or get_budget_health. Usage is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.