YNAB MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.3
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools target distinct resources (accounts, categories, transactions, etc.) with clear descriptions. However, there is some overlap between get_money_movements_for_month, list_money_movements, and similar group tools, which could cause minor confusion.
Naming Consistency3/5
The naming uses a generally consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., list_accounts, create_transaction), but there are inconsistencies: get_transactions_by_account uses 'get_' for a list, while similar list_ tools exist. This mixed convention slightly reduces predictability.
Tool Count2/5
With 47 tools, the server is very large for typical MCP contexts. While YNAB has a broad API, the tool count feels excessive and could overwhelm agents, making selection harder.
Completeness4/5
Core CRUD operations exist for accounts, categories, transactions, scheduled transactions, and payees. Analytical tools like get_spending_by_category add value. Missing create/update for payee locations and money movement groups are minor gaps.
Average 4.2/5 across 47 of 47 tools scored. Lowest: 3.2/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 3 of 3 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 1 commit in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on August 4, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under AGPL 3.0.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the exclude_fields behavior but does not disclose that this is a read-only operation, any required permissions, or potential side effects. Missing information about the return structure or pagination, though output schema covers return format. Overall, limited behavioral disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficient: a one-line purpose followed by structured Args section. Every sentence adds value. The bullet-style parameter descriptions are clear and concise. Slightly redundant with tool name, but still well-organized and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and an output schema (exists but not shown), the description covers the exclude_fields parameter well but does not explain the return value beyond what schema provides. It lacks context about alternative tools or filtering options. For a tool with 3 parameters and moderate complexity, it is minimally complete but has gaps in usage context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds value by explaining exclude_fields in detail (default behavior, passing empty list, custom list). It also hints at plan_id with 'use list_plans to find available IDs'. However, payee_id has no added semantics. The explanation is helpful but not comprehensive.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get all locations for a specific payee' - a specific verb (get) and resource (locations for a payee). The tool name includes 'by_payee' and the description reinforces this scope. Among siblings, it is distinct from 'list_payee_locations' (likely all locations) and 'get_payee_location' (single location).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'list_payee_locations' or 'get_payee_location'. It mentions using 'list_plans' to find plan IDs but does not set expectations for when this tool is appropriate or offer exclusions. The agent is left to infer use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. However, it does not state that this is a read-only operation, does not mention error handling (e.g., what happens if the location ID does not exist), and does not describe authentication or rate limits. The detailed explanation of exclude_fields is useful but insufficient for overall behavioral transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the purpose. The parameter explanations are structured clearly in a list. However, the exclude_fields explanation is somewhat verbose, though it adds necessary detail. Overall, every sentence serves a purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema, return values do not need to be described. The description adequately covers parameters and provides a hint for finding plan IDs. However, it does not explain what a payee location is, which might leave some ambiguity. The tool is simple, so this is adequate but not comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema coverage, the description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema. It explains the purpose of payee_location_id and plan_id, and gives a thorough explanation of exclude_fields including default behavior and how to override. This adds clear value for the agent.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get a single payee location.' The verb 'Get' and resource 'payee location' are specific and unambiguous. Among siblings, it is distinguished from list_payee_locations (list all) and get_payee_locations_by_payee (filter by payee), so its purpose is well-defined.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_payee_locations_by_payee. While it hints at using list_plans to find plan IDs, it does not explain when a single location retrieval is appropriate or what prerequisites exist. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does 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 not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the update is idempotent, effects of changing a past month's budget, authorization requirements, or rate limits. The return value is not described (though an output schema exists externally).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is reasonably structured with a clear first sentence and an 'Args' block, but it is verbose (e.g., lengthy explanation for exclude_fields). The first sentence is front-loaded, but the overall length could be reduced without losing necessary details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description partially fills gaps but is missing behavioral context (e.g., idempotency, side effects). The presence of an output schema (mentioned in context) reduces the need for return value description, but mutation details are still lacking. Sibling comparisons are minimal.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaningful context for each parameter: explains format for 'month' (YYYY-MM-DD, first of month), unit for 'budgeted' (dollars), usage for 'plan_id' (use list_plans), and details for 'exclude_fields' (default behavior, override, return all). This fully compensates for the schema gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Update') and identifies the resource ('budgeted amount for a category in a specific month'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'update_category' (which updates category metadata) and 'get_category_for_month' (which retrieves data).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no when-not-to-use conditions, and no prerequisites. For example, it does not mention that to update category-level settings (not per-month budget), one should use 'update_category'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the parameter 'exclude_fields' in depth, including default behavior and the ability to customize via FIELDS.md. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only, non-destructive operation. However, it does not mention potential errors (e.g., account not found), rate limits, or authentication requirements. Overall, the transparency is good for a simple retrieval tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise at two sentences plus an args block. It front-loads the core purpose. The structure is clean, though the args section could be integrated as a single paragraph. No wordiness, and every sentence provides value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 3 parameters and an output schema, the description is mostly adequate. It explains the parameters and references external documentation for default fields. However, it fails to describe error cases (e.g., invalid ID), response structure (beyond output schema), or any side effects. For a retrieval tool with moderate complexity, this is a minor gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must add meaning. For plan_id and account_id, it adds basic context (e.g., 'use list_plans to find available IDs' for plan_id). For exclude_fields, it provides detailed semantics regarding default, empty array, and custom override. This significantly enhances understanding beyond the schema alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get details for a specific account,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_accounts (which lists all accounts) by emphasizing 'specific account.' However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other get tools like get_plan or get_transaction, but the resource name and required account_id make its purpose clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_accounts or get_plan. There is no mention of prerequisites, contextual triggers, or when this tool should be avoided. The only reference is to use list_plans to find plan IDs, which is helpful but narrow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, pagination behavior, or any auth requirements. The only behavioral content is about the exclude_fields parameter, which belongs to parameter semantics.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with a clear lead sentence and structured parameter docs. The exclude_fields explanation is slightly verbose but justified by the complex behavior. Overall, every sentence serves a purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Output schema is present but not shown, so we assume return values are documented. However, the description lacks info on pagination, sorting, or filtering. Given the tool has only two parameters, it feels incomplete without noting that it lists all scheduled transactions for a plan.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaningful context: for plan_id, it suggests using list_plans; for exclude_fields, it explains the default behavior and how to override (pass [] or custom list). This compensates for the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states 'List all scheduled (recurring) transactions', clearly identifying the action (list) and resource (scheduled transactions). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_scheduled_transaction (single) or create/update/delete variants.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description hints at a prerequisite (use list_plans to find plan_id) but does not specify when to use this vs alternatives like get_scheduled_transaction, nor does it mention when not to use it. Usage guidance is minimal and implied from sibling names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries full responsibility. It states deletion but does not disclose whether the action is destructive, irreversible, or requires specific permissions. Output schema exists but is not explained.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with a clear structure: purpose line followed by parameter explanations. Slightly verbose for exclude_fields but necessary for clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the action and parameters adequately but omits details about return value, side effects, or permanence of deletion. Output schema exists but is not referenced.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates fully: transaction_id and plan_id are explained clearly, and exclude_fields is detailed with default behavior and override options.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states 'Delete a transaction,' clearly identifying the action and resource. This distinguishes it from siblings like create_transaction, update_transaction, and get_transaction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies deletion use case but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention alternatives or preconditions like required permissions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It explains the exclude_fields parameter behavior but omits mutation effects, permissions, error handling (e.g., missing transaction), and return format insights beyond the implied read-only nature of 'get'.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a clear lead sentence and parameter breakdown. The exclude_fields explanation is slightly verbose but informative, and the reference to FIELDS.md adds external context. It is concise enough with no wasted sentences.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While parameter semantics are well-covered, the description lacks context on when to choose this tool over siblings and does not disclose error behavior or read-only nature. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but behavioral gaps remain.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema coverage, the description fully explains all three parameters. It clarifies plan_id usage (reference to list_plans) and provides three distinct behaviors for exclude_fields, adding substantial meaning beyond the schema titles.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Get a specific transaction by ID' which is a clear verb+resource. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like list_transactions or get_transactions_by_account, lacking differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides detailed guidance on using parameters (e.g., plan_id from list_plans, exclude_fields options) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over other transaction retrieval siblings, leaving tool selection ambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It describes parameter behavior (exclude_fields default/override) but does not disclose creation behavior such as error handling, idempotency, or access requirements. The description is functional but not fully transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured. It starts with the purpose, then lists parameters in a clear Args block. Each sentence adds unique value, with no redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has an output schema, so the description does not need to detail return values. However, it could mention what the response contains (e.g., the created category group). The parameter exclude_fields is explained in context of the response, which partially compensates. Overall, it is adequate but not comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must provide semantic meaning. It does so effectively: plan_id is linked to list_plans, name includes max length constraint, and exclude_fields has detailed usage (default, override, all fields). This adds significant value beyond the schema types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Create a new category group.' The verb 'create' and resource 'category group' are specific. The tool name and description distinguish it from sibling tools like update_category_group and create_category, as the resource differs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides guidance for the exclude_fields parameter (default behavior, how to override) and suggests using list_plans to find plan IDs. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_category, update_category_group), nor does it mention any prerequisites or side effects.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does 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 not disclose read-only nature, authentication needs, or what happens on errors (e.g., invalid plan_id). The reference to FIELDS.md is external, and the description lacks details on return format or pagination, though an output schema exists.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise: a single-line purpose followed by clear, bullet-like parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the core action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that the tool is a simple list operation with two parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential inputs. However, it omits details on pagination, sorting, or error handling, which would be helpful for a list tool. The reference to external doc is a minor gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates. It explains plan_id with a cross-tool hint (use list_plans) and details exclude_fields behavior, including defaults, empty array, and custom lists. This adds significant value over the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List all payee locations in a plan,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_payee_location (single location) and get_payee_locations_by_payee (filtered by payee) through the phrase 'in a plan' and the implied scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not explicitly tell when to use this tool versus alternatives. The purpose is implied by the name and description, but there is no mention of siblings or exclusions, such as suggesting get_payee_locations_by_payee for payee-specific queries.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains the exclude_fields behavior but does not disclose side effects, authorization needs, rate limits, or pagination. The tool's safety or destructive potential is not addressed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded: first sentence states the main action, then a parameter list with clear explanations. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema, the description covers purpose, parameters, and a cross-reference. However, it omits pagination, ordering, or limits for large result sets, which are relevant for list operations. Still, the core functionality is well explained.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With schema description coverage at 0%, the description fully compensates by explaining all four parameters: plan_id (with cross-reference), since_date (format), type (valid values), and exclude_fields (behavior, defaults, and overrides). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List transactions in a plan' with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_transactions' by mentioning filtering by date and type, which aligns with a straightforward list operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage (list all or filtered transactions) and cross-references 'list_plans' for finding plan IDs, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_transactions' or 'get_transactions_by_account'. Lacks when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states 'Create' without mentioning side effects, permissions, validation rules, or success/failure behavior. The exclude_fields parameter is explained, but overall behavioral transparency is inadequate for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is structured as a docstring with an Args section, front-loaded with the purpose. While detailed, it efficiently provides necessary parameter info. Could be slightly more concise, but the detail for exclude_fields is warranted.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema (so return values not needed), the description covers all parameters adequately. It lacks behavioral context (e.g., what happens on creation), but parameter descriptions are thorough. Overall fairly complete for the tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description adds significant value: lists allowed values for type, gives balance format example, explains exclude_fields behavior in detail (default, pass [], custom list), and suggests using list_plans for plan_id. This goes well beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Create a new account' with a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from sibling tools like list_accounts and get_account by indicating it creates a new entity. References list_plans for finding plan IDs, aiding correct invocation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for creating accounts and provides a prerequisite (use list_plans for plan_id). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to create vs. update). No exclusions or when-not instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. However, it only gives parameter details and does not mention whether the operation is read-only, requires special permissions, or has any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and structured, starting with a purpose statement followed by parameter details. The reference to an external file (FIELDS.md) is a minor drawback as it requires the agent to fetch additional context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It adequately covers parameter semantics and preconditions (e.g., using list_plans). It does not address error handling, but the tool is straightforward enough that this is acceptable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description compensates fully by explaining the month format (YYYY-MM-DD or 'current'), how to obtain plan_id via list_plans, and the behavior of exclude_fields (default exclude list, returning all fields with empty list, overriding defaults).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that the tool gets a detailed plan month summary including all categories. It uses a specific verb-resource pair and is distinct from sibling tools like 'get_money_movements_for_month' and 'list_months', which focus on different data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides usage hints such as using 'current' for the current month and referencing list_plans to find plan IDs. It does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or compare to alternatives, but the context makes it clear that it is for monthly plan summaries.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must disclose traits. It implies read-only (list), and explains exclude_fields default behavior. However, it does not explicitly state idempotency, rate limits, or auth needs. The reference to FIELDS.md is external and may not be accessible.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: one line for purpose, then bulleted args. No redundant information. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, the description does not define 'money movement group' or mention ordering/pagination. The parameter explanations are complete, but broader context is lacking.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description carries full burden. It explains both parameters thoroughly: plan_id directs to list_plans; exclude_fields details default, [] behavior, and custom override. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List all money movement groups in a plan,' with a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list_money_movements' (individual movements) and 'get_money_movement_groups_for_month' (month-scoped).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides good parameter-level guidance (use list_plans for plan_id, explain exclude_fields behavior) but lacks explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives. No mention of when not to use this tool or comparison to sibling list/get tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, description carries full burden. Discloses split unsupported, future date limit, exclude_fields behavior. But missing idempotency, side effects, or behavior on already executed transactions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with intro and Args list. Slight redundancy: 'requires account_id and date' mentioned twice. Otherwise efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given high parameter count, no annotations, and existing output schema, description covers constraints, parameter details, and behavioral notes. Lacks error handling or idempotency discussion, but sufficient for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description fully documents all 12 parameters with format, constraints, examples, and special cases (e.g., transfer_payee_id, negative amounts, flag colors, frequency options). No gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states 'Update a scheduled transaction' - specific verb and resource. Differentiates from siblings like create_scheduled_transaction, delete_scheduled_transaction, and get_scheduled_transaction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides key constraints (requires account_id and date, no splits, future date limited to 5 years) but lacks explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives like update_transaction or update_transactions. Does not mention prerequisites like plan_id validity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations are provided, the description bears full responsibility. It states the deletion action but does not disclose whether deletion is irreversible, what permissions are needed, or if there are any side effects. This is adequate but not thorough.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with a clear one-line action statement followed by bulleted parameter explanations. No extraneous text; every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the existence of an output schema (documenting return values) and thorough parameter descriptions, the description is largely complete. However, it could mention that deletion is permanent or any prerequisites, but this is a minor gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates. Each parameter is explained with purpose and usage details, including the optional exclude_fields parameter with specific instructions for overriding defaults.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Delete a scheduled transaction', which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like update_scheduled_transaction and create_scheduled_transaction by focusing on deletion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by requiring plan_id and referencing list_plans to find IDs, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus delete_transaction for regular transactions. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains parameter behavior (e.g., default exclude list from FIELDS.md) but does not mention side effects, permissions, rate limits, or whether the tool is read-only. The purpose implies a read operation, but explicit safety traits are absent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, with a clear main sentence followed by structured argument details. Every sentence adds value, and the format (using Args:) is easy to parse. No unnecessary words or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the output schema exists (so return values are documented elsewhere), the description covers parameter usage well and mentions external documentation (FIELDS.md). It doesn't discuss pagination or ordering, which might be relevant for 'all' groups, but this is a minor gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
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. It adds significant meaning: month format ('YYYY-MM-DD or 'current''), plan_id reference (how to look it up), and detailed exclude_fields behavior (default, empty list, custom list). This fully clarifies parameter semantics beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get all money movement groups for a specific month,' specifying the verb 'get,' the resource 'money movement groups,' and the scope 'for a specific month.' This distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_money_movements_for_month' (which likely fetches individual movements) and 'list_money_movement_groups' (which probably lists all groups without date filtering).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains parameter usage (e.g., month format, how to find plan_id, exclude_fields behavior) but does not provide explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. Context is implied by the name and description, but no exclusions or when-not-to-use information is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It explains the grouping structure and the exclude_fields behavior. However, it does not mention potential limitations like pagination, rate limits, or authorization requirements, which would be helpful for a complete transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured with an Args section. The exclude_fields explanation is slightly verbose but justified given its complexity. No superfluous sentences.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists (not shown), so return values need not be detailed. The description covers parameters and behavior adequately. It could mention that the plan must exist, but overall it provides sufficient context for a straightforward list operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It does so effectively: for plan_id, it advises using list_plans to find IDs; for exclude_fields, it explains the default, empty array, and custom list options. This adds significant value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List all categories') and the output format ('grouped by category group'). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like 'get_category' (single category) and 'list_money_movement_groups' (different resource).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context: it explains how to find the plan_id using list_plans and details the exclude_fields parameter, including default behavior and override options. Although it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, the usage context is well covered.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It explains the required parameters and the optional exclude_fields behavior (default vs custom). However, it does not mention permissions, error responses, or side effects on related data, leaving some gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured, using a bullet-like list for arguments. Every sentence adds useful information without redundancy. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and parameter details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, output schema exists), the description adequately covers input parameters and the exclude_fields behavior. It does not explain output, but that is handled by the output schema. Minor gaps include no mention of error cases or rate limits, but overall it is complete enough for an update tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates. Each parameter is explained: plan_id (reference to list_plans), category_group_id (which ID to update), name (new name with max length), and exclude_fields (optional, with detailed semantics on default, empty list, and custom list). This adds substantial value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description begins with 'Update a category group,' clearly stating the action (update) and the target resource (category group). Among sibling tools like create_category_group and delete_category_group, this tool's purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not specify when to use this tool over alternatives. It provides a helpful hint about using list_plans to find plan IDs, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or comparisons with other update tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It discloses the date format requirement, default exclude behavior, and the ability to override. However, it does not state that this is a read-only operation or mention any authorization needs or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a clear main sentence followed by an Args block. Each line serves a purpose. It could be slightly more concise, but it remains efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description does not need to explain return values. It covers all input parameters thoroughly. It could mention connections to other monthly tools like 'get_month' for completeness, but it is sufficient for its purpose.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully explain parameters. It does so comprehensively: explains the month format, suggests using list_plans for plan_id, and details the exclude_fields parameter with examples. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's simple titles.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it retrieves category details for a specific month. The verb 'Get' and resource 'category details for a specific month' are explicit and distinct from sibling tools like 'update_category_for_month' (update) and 'get_category' (general).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It provides context on when to use this tool by explaining the parameters, including hints like using 'list_plans' for plan IDs and the default exclude list. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like 'get_category' or 'get_spending_by_month'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses exclusion of pending transactions, hybrid type behavior, and exclude_fields default behavior. Lacks mention of read-only nature or authentication needs.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with bullet points for args. Front-loaded with purpose. Slightly verbose with full parameter description but no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers all 5 parameters with meaningful descriptions. Explains hybrid transaction output. Could mention error handling or rate limits, but output schema exists to cover return details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description thoroughly explains each parameter: category_id, plan_id, since_date, type, and exclude_fields with examples and default behavior.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states 'Get all transactions for a specific category' and elaborates on the return format (hybrid transactions with type field). Distinguishes from siblings by category focus.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implied usage through parameter descriptions (e.g., type filter, exclude_fields), but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use compared to sibling tools like list_transactions or get_transactions_by_account.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It documents the exclude_fields parameter behavior (default, override, all fields) but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, or error handling.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is structured with a summary sentence followed by parameter documentation. It is informative but could be more concise; the 'Args' section adds length but is justified given the parameter complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has an output schema (not shown), so description need not explain return values. Parameter documentation is thorough. However, it does not explicitly state the operation is read-only, which would be helpful given the absence of annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides 0% description coverage for the only parameter (exclude_fields). The description fully compensates by explaining that omitting the parameter uses the model's default exclude list, passing an empty array returns all fields, and a custom list overrides the default.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists all plans in the user's YNAB account and is to be called first to obtain plan IDs. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_plan, which retrieves a single plan.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states 'Call this first to get plan IDs,' providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not mention when not to use it or provide explicit alternatives beyond the implied workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description bears the burden. It discloses the max length for name and the exclude_fields behavior, but does not mention permissions, error handling, or side effects. The mutation is implicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-organized with lines for each argument and a clear explanation of exclude_fields. It is concise but a bit verbose on exclude_fields, yet every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers input parameters thoroughly. Since an output schema exists (not shown but noted), the lack of return value description is acceptable. It could mention prerequisites or side effects for completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: plan_id source, payee_id as identifier, name max length, and exclude_fields usage with all options.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Update a payee.' with a verb and resource, and among siblings like get_payee and list_payees, it is distinct and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides context for when to use, e.g., 'use list_plans to find available IDs', and explains the exclude_fields parameter behavior. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool references, but the guidance is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the creation behavior and optional goal behavior, but does not disclose error scenarios, side effects, or auth requirements. Adequate but could be more transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a clear Args list. Each parameter description is concise and informative. Slightly verbose, but necessary given the lack of schema descriptions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (7 params, 3 required) and no annotations, the description covers all necessary information: parameter usage, optional goal behavior, exclude_fields default, and a reference to another tool. It is complete for an agent to safely invoke the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description provides detailed explanations for all 7 parameters, including how to obtain plan_id, the effect of goal_target (creates a monthly goal), and the behavior of exclude_fields. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Create a new category in a category group.' with a specific verb (create) and resource (category). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like create_category_group or update_category.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes parameter guidance, such as using list_plans to find plan_id, and explains the effect of goal_target. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, description carries full burden. It discloses unsupported splits, date constraints, amount sign convention, payee fallback logic, category exclusions, memo length, flag colors, frequency values, and exclude_fields behavior. Lacks details on idempotency or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is well-structured with a brief intro followed by parameter details. Slightly lengthy but every sentence adds value. Could be more concise by grouping related info.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given complexity (11 params, 3 required, output schema exists), description provides thorough parameter guidance, key constraints, and unsupported features. Output schema covers return values. No gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description fully compensates. Each parameter gets detailed explanation: plan_id references list_plans, account_id, date format and constraint, amount sign meaning, payee_id references list_payees and transfer payee, payee_name fallback, category_id exclusion, memo max chars, flag_color enum, frequency enum, exclude_fields explanation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Create a scheduled transaction (a transaction with a future date)' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from related tools like create_transaction (immediate) and list_scheduled_transactions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Description provides constraints (no splits, date must be future and within 5 years) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_transaction. No when-not or alternative tool mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It states the output type (nodes and index-based links) and that it builds chart data. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or idempotent, nor does it disclose any side effects or permissions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences plus a structured args list. Every sentence adds value—purpose, output, and parameter guidance. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With an output schema present, the description doesn't need to detail return fields. It explains the tool's purpose, output type, and parameters thoroughly. Could mention the visualization type more explicitly, but overall complete for its complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description fully explains both parameters: plan_id (mentioning list_plans for IDs) and month (with format example and default 'current'). This provides essential context beyond the schema's type and default.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Build Sankey chart data showing money flow from income sources to spending category groups.' It uses a specific verb ('build'), identifies the resource ('Sankey chart data'), and distinguishes from siblings like 'get_money_movements_for_month' which likely returns raw movements.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use for visualization by stating 'suitable for Sankey/flow visualizations.' It provides guidance on how to obtain plan_id and month format, but does not explicitly contrast with similar tools or state when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It explains the behavior of exclude_fields in detail, but omits other aspects like idempotency, error handling (e.g., not found), or auth requirements. The read-only nature is implied but not stated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured with a docstring-style args list. The first sentence is direct. The explanation of exclude_fields is slightly lengthy but necessary for clarity. No extraneous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple retrieval tool with an output schema (implied), the description covers all necessary aspects: it states what the tool does, explains all parameters, and provides a helpful cross-reference. There are no gaps given the low complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It does so effectively, explaining that plan_id can be found via list_plans, and detailing the exclude_fields behavior including default, null pass, and custom overrides. This adds substantial value beyond the raw schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get a single payee', which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_payees (lists multiple) and update_payee (modifies), so the purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides context for using plan_id by referencing list_plans, and explains exclude_fields options. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, the purpose of retrieving a single payee by ID is clear, and the cross-reference aids correct usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses that the tool returns a list of imported transaction IDs and implies a batch operation on all linked accounts. However, it does not mention potential side effects such as the possibility of duplicate imports, rate limits, or the need for account linkage, leaving gaps in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, with a clear opening sentence followed by a helpful analogy and a structured Args section. Every sentence is purposeful, and there is no extraneous information, making it easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the low complexity (1 required parameter, output schema exists), the description covers the tool's purpose, parameter guidance, and return value sufficiently. The output schema handles return structure details, so no further elaboration is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There is only one parameter (plan_id) with 0% schema description coverage. The description compensates by explaining what plan_id is and directing the user to 'list_plans' to find available IDs, adding meaningful context that the schema alone lacks.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool imports transactions on all linked accounts, using a specific verb ('Import') and resource ('transactions on linked accounts'). The analogy to clicking 'Import' in the web app or mobile app reinforces the purpose and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'create_transaction' or 'list_transactions'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a usage analogy ('Equivalent to clicking Import...') and instructs on how to find the plan_id using 'list_plans'. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool vs. alternatives like manual transaction creation, nor does it mention any prerequisites or limitations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, but description explains default exclude list behavior and references FIELDS.md. It implies a read-only, list operation, which is adequately transparent for this tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Concise, well-structured with Args section. Slightly detailed on exclude_fields but necessary. Front-loads main action. No wasted sentences.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given output schema exists (not shown), return values are covered. Covers purpose, parameters, and usage. Lacks mention of pagination but acceptable for a list tool with unspecified volume.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema coverage, description compensates well: explains plan_id usage and exclude_fields default/override semantics, adding meaning beyond the basic type info.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List all payees in a plan' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_payee (single) and list_payee_locations (related entity).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides clear guidance: use list_plans to find plan_id, explains exclude_fields default and override behavior. Does not explicitly state when not to use, but context is sufficient for an agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It discloses constraints (no future dates), explains relationship between payee_id and payee_name, split behavior via subtransactions, and import_id matching. However, does not explicitly state mutation side effects, required permissions, or idempotency, leaving some behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Front-loaded with key purpose and critical constraint. Parameter descriptions are structured clearly with newlines and each sentence earns its place. Despite length, it's efficiently organized and not verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool complexity (14 parameters, output schema exists), the description covers all necessary aspects: parameter semantics, constraints, relationships between parameters, and alternative usage. Complete for an agent to invoke correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema coverage, the description fully compensates by detailing each of the 14 parameters with usage context: date format, amount sign convention, payee_id for transfers, category_id for splits, subtransactions structure, and exclude_fields behavior. Adds significant value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description begins with 'Create a new transaction', clearly specifying the verb and resource. It immediately distinguishes this tool from scheduled transactions for future dates, providing a clear scope. No ambiguity with sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when not to use this tool: future-dated transactions are not permitted, directing to scheduled transactions instead. Provides context but does not explicitly compare with other write tools like create_transactions or update_transaction, though the usage is clear for single transactions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description effectively discloses behavior: it returns a single category with amounts for the current month, and explains the exclude_fields logic. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Concise and front-loaded with purpose. Arg list is clear. Could be slightly tighter, but every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers inputs and behavior. It explains month specificity and excludes fields. Missing explicit note that it is read-only, but not critical.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema_description_coverage is 0%, but the description fully explains each parameter: category_id, plan_id (with hint to use list_plans), and exclude_fields with detailed options. Compensates entirely for missing schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get a single category' and distinguishes from sibling tools like list_categories and get_category_for_month by noting that amounts are specific to the current plan month (UTC).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides guidance for exclude_fields parameter with three clear options, including a reference to FIELDS.md. However, it does not explicitly compare to siblings like get_category_for_month or state when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden and explains the main behavior: retrieving all money movements for a month. It details the exclude_fields behavior and mentions the default exclude list, but does not cover error handling or pagination (though output schema exists).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a summary line followed by parameter details. Each sentence adds value, though slightly longer than minimal due to necessary parameter clarifications.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations but an output schema, the description covers purpose, parameters, and usage adequately for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. Minor omissions like error cases are acceptable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds significant meaning: month format and 'current' option, plan_id source, and exclude_fields usage including default, all-fields, and custom overrides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get all money movements for a specific month,' providing a specific verb and resource with a clear constraint. It distinguishes from siblings like list_money_movements and get_money_movement_groups_for_month.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides context on how to use month, plan_id, and exclude_fields, including referencing list_plans for plan_id and FIELDS.md for default excludes. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives but offers sufficient guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the return structure (sorted, grouped, fields) but does not disclose any side effects, permissions, or rate limits. While adequate for a read operation, it could be more comprehensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with a clear purpose line, a summary of return format, and brief parameter explanations. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema (not shown but signaled), the description provides sufficient context about the tool's behavior and parameters. It covers all necessary aspects for an agent to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description adds significant value: it explains that plan_id comes from list_plans and specifies the month format including the 'current' option. This goes well beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description specifies a 'per-category spending breakdown' with 'budget vs actual comparison' and details the sorted, grouped return format. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'get_category' or 'get_transactions_by_category'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides context by mentioning 'use list_plans to find available IDs' and specifying the month format, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like 'get_transactions_by_category'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that pending transactions are excluded, explains exclude_fields defaults and overrides, and notes the date format. It does not discuss pagination, rate limits, or auth, but for a read operation these are less critical. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a clear purpose sentence followed by an args list. It is moderately concise; every sentence adds value (parameter descriptions, behavior hints). Minor verbosity could be trimmed, but overall efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (5 params, 2 required), 0% schema coverage, and presence of output schema, the description covers parameters and a key behavioral trait (pending exclusion). It omits pagination or limits, but these are acceptable gaps for a read tool with output schema. Adequate for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
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. It does so thoroughly: explains each parameter (account_id, plan_id with reference to list_plans, since_date format, type filter values, exclude_fields behavior with three clear options). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema definitions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description starts with 'Get transactions for a specific account, excluding pending transactions,' clearly stating the verb, resource, and a key behavioral filter. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_transactions by specifying account-scoped retrieval and a pending exclusion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides detailed parameter guidance (e.g., using list_plans to find plan_id, date format, filter options, exclude_fields behavior). It does not explicitly compare this tool to alternatives like get_transactions_by_category, but the context and parameter details imply appropriate use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It implies a read-only listing operation but does not explicitly mention side effects, permissions, or error handling (e.g., invalid plan_id). The output schema exists but is not referenced in the description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, well-structured with bulleted args, and includes only necessary information. Every sentence adds value, and the reference to FIELDS.md is appropriate.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers inputs and their behavior. It does not require additional details like pagination, as the tool appears to return all accounts in a plan. The description is complete for an agent to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds crucial meaning: explains plan_id's source and exclude_fields' default, empty array, and custom usage. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (list), the resource (accounts), and the scope (in a plan). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like create_account, get_account, and list_transactions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit guidance for obtaining plan_id via list_plans and explains the behavior of exclude_fields with examples. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_account or search_transactions, though the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, but the description explains the behavior of 'exclude_fields' parameter in detail (default, override, etc.). Does not mention pagination or rate limits, but for a list operation this is reasonable.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Concise with a clear opening sentence and structured parameter details. Slightly verbose due to reference to FIELDS.md, but overall efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Has an output schema, so return values are covered externally. Description sufficiently explains operation and parameters. Could mention that it returns a list, but not essential.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema coverage is 0%, so description fully explains both parameters: 'plan_id' with guidance to use 'list_plans', and 'exclude_fields' with default behavior and custom usage. This adds significant value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List all money movements in a plan' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_money_movements_for_month' which targets a specific month.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Describes when to use (list all money movements) and provides context for parameters. Does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the purpose is clear and distinct from siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses important behaviors: creating a goal if goal_target is specified without existing goal, and exclude_fields default behavior referencing FIELDS.md. No contradictions with missing annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Structured with Args list; first sentence is clear. Slightly verbose but efficient for the parameter count.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers main behaviors and parameter semantics. Output schema handles return. Lacks error/edge case info, but sufficient for typical use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All 8 parameters are explained in the description, with additional semantics for goal_target (conditionally creates a goal). Schema description coverage is 0%, so description fully compensates.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Update a category' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like update_category_for_month by focusing on the category itself.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides directive 'Only provide the fields you want to change', guiding optimal usage. Lacks explicit comparison to alternatives, but context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses behavioral traits: sparse update, lookup options, unsupported features. It does not detail error handling or idempotency, but overall provides sufficient transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is fairly long but well-structured with a summary, bullet points, and detailed Args. It is front-loaded with purpose. Slightly verbose due to extensive parameter docs, but necessary given schema coverage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With an output schema present, return behavior is not required. The description covers parameters, usage constraints, and examples. It could mention interaction with sibling tools more explicitly, but is largely complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, yet the description provides a detailed 'Args' section explaining plan_id, transactions (with subfields), and exclude_fields. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema, fully compensating.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states 'Update multiple transactions in a single API call.' It specifies verb, resource, and scope, and contrasts with single-transaction update via sibling tools. It also gives use cases like bulk recategorization.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains when to use (bulk operations) and lists constraints (must provide id or import_id, sparse update, no subtransactions on existing split, no future-dated transactions). It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must cover behavioral traits. It details constraints like date format, amount sign, max characters for memo, and mentions that response includes duplicate_import_id rejections. Missing aspects like idempotency or required permissions, but overall good.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a front-loaded purpose and bullet-pointed parameter details. While lengthy, it is justified by the complexity of the tool. A slightly more concise phrasing could improve readability.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (multiple transactions, nested subtransactions, many optional fields) and the existence of an output schema, the description fully covers input semantics and key behavioral notes, making it complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description carries full burden. It provides extensive details for each parameter, including structure of transactions array, optional fields, defaults, and constraints. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool creates multiple transactions in a single API call, ideal for bulk imports. This distinguishes it from singular create_transaction and other related siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description identifies the use case (bulk imports) and notes that future-dated transactions are not permitted. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explains the optional exclude_fields behavior in detail, including the default mechanism and override. However, it lacks info on error handling, permissions, or response format (though output schema exists).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise but uses a multi-line Args format. It front-loads the purpose and each sentence adds value. Slightly verbose for a simple tool, but efficient overall.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (2 parameters, one optional) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary behavioral aspects. The exclude_fields nuance is fully explained, making the description complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but description adds significant meaning: plan_id is linked to list_plans for ID discovery, and exclude_fields is explained with three use cases (omit, empty list, custom list). This goes well beyond the schema's minimal definitions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves details for a specific plan (verb+resource). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_plans (which lists IDs) and get_plan_settings (which retrieves settings).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It advises using list_plans to find plan IDs and explains the exclude_fields parameter behavior (default, empty list, custom list). No explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools beyond list_plans, but the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, description carries full burden. It discloses the default exclusion behavior of exclude_fields and how to override it (pass [] for all, custom list). This is key behavioral detail beyond a simple getter. No mention of auth or rate limits, but the tool is read-only by nature.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is brief but includes an 'Args' section that is slightly verbose. However, the detail is necessary given the complexity of exclude_fields. It remains front-loaded with the purpose statement. Good structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the output schema exists, return values need no explanation. Both parameters are fully explained. The description points to FIELDS.md for further details, which is acceptable. No gaps remain for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate fully. It does: explains plan_id as requiring a specific ID from list_plans, and provides a thorough explanation of exclude_fields including default, override, and custom list. Adds significant value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it retrieves settings (date format, currency format) for a plan. Distinguishes from sibling get_plan (which would fetch broader plan details) and list_plans (which lists plans). Verb 'Get' is specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit guidance for plan_id parameter ('use list_plans to find available IDs') and detailed behavior for exclude_fields. Lacks explicit 'when to use' vs alternatives, but the tool's purpose is straightforward and the parameter advice sufficiently guides correct invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the operation is a get (read-only), explains the exclude_fields mechanism and references FIELDS.md. It lacks explicit mention of error handling or idempotency, but covers the core behavior well.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, front-loaded with purpose, and structured as a clear docstring. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema, the description doesn't need to detail return values. It covers parameters thoroughly but references an external file (FIELDS.md) for default exclude list, which could be summarized. Overall, it's nearly complete for a simple getter.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must add meaning. It fully explains each parameter: scheduled_transaction_id is the ID, plan_id requires list_plans, exclude_fields has detailed default and override semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description starts with 'Get a single scheduled transaction', clearly stating the action and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling list_scheduled_transactions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains required parameters (scheduled_transaction_id, plan_id) and how to find plan_id via list_plans. It also details exclude_fields behavior, including default and custom usage. However, it does not explicitly contrast with list_scheduled_transactions or provide when-not-to-use scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that pending transactions are excluded and explains the exclude_fields behavior in detail. However, it does not mention any side effects, permissions, or limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: one sentence for purpose, then a bulleted Args section. No redundant information, well front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has an output schema, so return values need not be explained. The description covers key aspects (month, plan, filters, field exclusion). It could mention pagination but is adequate for the tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 0% description coverage, so description fully compensates. All 5 parameters are explained with format, usage, or options (e.g., month format, type filter values, exclude_fields logic).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get all transactions for a specific plan month, excluding pending transactions', which is a specific verb+resource+scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_transactions by focusing on a month filter.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides context on how to use parameters (e.g., 'use list_plans to find available IDs' for plan_id, format for month). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_transactions_by_account or search_transactions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It transparently discloses exclusion of pending transactions, hybrid return type with 'type' and 'parent_transaction_id', and parameter behaviors like exclude_fields default and override.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with summary and Args. Could be slightly more concise but effectively front-loads key info and uses minimal repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers all 5 parameters, behavior, and return type. Output schema exists so return details are not needed. Complete for this tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but description fully compensates with detailed Args: payee_id, plan_id, since_date format, type filter options, and exclude_fields behavior including default and custom lists.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states 'Get all transactions for a specific payee, excluding pending transactions.' This is a specific verb (get) + resource (transactions by payee), and distinguishes from siblings like get_transactions_by_account or search_transactions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives. The description implies use for payee-based queries but does not mention when not to use or compare to other tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the default behavior of exclude_fields (model's default list, with options to return all or override). This adds valuable behavioral context beyond the schema. For a read-only list operation, this is sufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one short sentence followed by clear parameter descriptions with formatting. Every sentence adds value, no fluff, and the structure is easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers purpose, parameter usage, and the special behavior of exclude_fields. Missing details like pagination or ordering are not critical for a list tool of months, so it is adequately complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
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. It fully explains both parameters: plan_id references list_plans; exclude_fields details three behaviors (default, empty array for all, custom override). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type and default null.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states 'List all plan months', clearly identifying the verb (list) and resource (plan months). The sibling tools include 'get_month' (singular), so this tool is distinct in listing multiple months.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides guidance for the plan_id parameter by referencing list_plans to find available IDs. It also explains the exclude_fields behavior (default, get all, custom list). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other listing tools or give when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden. It details case-insensitive matching, date range filtering, amount range with absolute/raw value caveat, and exclude_fields default/override behavior. This provides comprehensive understanding of the tool's behavior beyond what the schema offers.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured: a one-sentence purpose followed by a bullet list of parameters. Every sentence adds necessary information. No redundant or missing details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers all parameters and key behaviors. However, given the existence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. A minor gap is lack of mention of pagination or result limits, but overall it is complete for a search tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
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. It does so excellently: explains query field scope, since_date format, amount_min/max filtering logic, and exclude_fields override. Each parameter's semantics are clearly defined, adding significant value over the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Search transactions by text across payee, memo, and category fields.' The verb 'Search' and resource 'transactions' are specific, and it distinguishes from siblings like list_transactions and get_transaction by emphasizing text-based search across multiple fields.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides context for using parameters (e.g., plan_id: 'use list_plans to find available IDs') and explains exclude_fields behavior. However, it does not specify when to use this tool over alternatives like list_transactions or when not to use it, nor does it mention any prerequisites or side effects.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses key behavioral traits: future-dated transactions are not permitted, split transaction amounts/dates cannot be changed, category_id cannot be changed for existing splits, and updating subtransactions is unsupported. It also explains the 'exclude_fields' parameter behavior. It does not mention required permissions or destructive consequences, but given the zero-annotation context, this is quite thorough.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is relatively long due to the number of parameters and edge cases, but it is well-structured with a clear introductory sentence, followed by important caveats, and then a parameter list. Every sentence contributes meaning. It could potentially be more concise by grouping common concepts, but given the complexity, it is appropriately detailed without being verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (14 parameters, special behaviors for splits and future dates, and existence of an output schema), the description covers all necessary aspects: parameter details, constraints, and optional exclude_fields behavior. It references external documentation (FIELDS.md) for default exclude lists. Most edge cases are addressed. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, which is not done here. The description is complete for an update tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 14 parameters with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no explanations. The description's 'Args' section adds detailed semantics for each parameter, including formats (e.g., YYYY-MM-DD for date), meanings (e.g., amount: 'negative for outflow, positive for inflow'), constraints (e.g., memo max 500 chars), and special cases (e.g., use null with subtransactions to create a split, payee_name resolves to existing or creates new). This adds enormous value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description begins with 'Update an existing transaction,' clearly stating the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_transaction' and 'delete_transaction' by specifying update semantics and providing details unique to updates (e.g., split handling, future-date restrictions).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly advises to 'Only provide the fields you want to change' and warns against using it for future-dated transactions, split transactions where amount/date cannot change, and unsupported subtransaction updates. It references 'list_plans' for finding plan IDs. However, it does not directly compare to 'update_transactions' (plural) or other related tools, leaving some ambiguity about when to use this single-transaction update versus bulk update.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It correctly implies read-only semantics via 'Get' and adds detail about the exclude_fields parameter, including the default behavior and reference to FIELDS.md. It does not mention safety guarantees explicitly but is sufficient for a read operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficient: one sentence for purpose, followed by a multi-line explanation of the parameter. No extraneous information. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema (not shown but present), the description need not detail return values. It covers the purpose and parameter behavior thoroughly. The reference to FIELDS.md is appropriate for default exclusion lists. The description is complete for a simple getter with one optional parameter.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The sole parameter, exclude_fields, has 0% schema description coverage, but the description compensates fully. It explains the default behavior (omission uses model's default from FIELDS.md), how to get all fields ([]), and custom overrides. This adds substantial meaning beyond the schema's basic type definition.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description begins with 'Get the authenticated user's information,' which uses a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_account, get_transaction, etc., which retrieve different entities.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description is self-explanatory as a simple getter for the authenticated user. There are no sibling tools with overlapping functionality, so explicit alternatives are not needed. The context of 'authenticated user' implies it should be used when the agent needs information about the current user.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-ynab MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/pragprogrammer/mcp-ynab/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/pragprogrammer/mcp-ynab)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-ynab MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/pragprogrammer/mcp-ynab/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/pragprogrammer/mcp-ynab)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/pragprogrammer/mcp-ynab'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server