Review unreconciled bank lines, postings, bills, and receipts for a date range, with suggested matches to guide reconciliation.
Inventory unreconciled bank lines, existing postings, bills and collected receipts for a period. Candidate matches are suggestions, not an accounting verdict.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end | Yes | ||
| start | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already define the safety profile (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds meaningful interpretive context by stating that candidate matches are suggestions, not an accounting verdict, which manages expectations about output reliability beyond the structured metadata.
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?
The description is two concise sentences with no waste. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose with specific items, and the second sentence adds a necessary caveat. Every word earns its place.
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?
For a read-only overview tool with simple date parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basic function and interpretation. However, it omits output structure (e.g., whether it returns lists, counts, or grouped data) and date semantics (inclusive/exclusive, timezone), leaving gaps that an agent might need to resolve.
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%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It only mentions 'for a period,' giving minimal context that start/end are date bounds. The schema provides format via pattern but no semantic explanation, leaving the description to do heavy lifting that it does not fully accomplish.
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 verb 'inventory' with specific resources (unreconciled bank lines, postings, bills, collected receipts) and a scope (for a period), which clearly states what the tool does. The caveat 'not an accounting verdict' differentiates it from reconciliation-like sibling tools, making its purpose distinct.
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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: when an overview of unreconciled items for a period is needed. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or exclusions, but the purpose statement is enough to infer appropriate usage, earning a 4 rather than a 3.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.