Retrieve account balance changes over a specified number of months to analyze financial trends and reconcile budgets.
Get account balance history over time
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| months | No | ||
| accountId | No | ||
| includeOffBudget | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.14.0Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseInput schema / properties / accountId / minLengthAdded value: +1Input schema / properties / months / exclusiveMinimumAdded value: +0Input schema / properties / months / maximumAdded value: +9007199254740991Input schema / properties / months / typePrevious value: -"number"New value: +"integer"Input schema / requiredRemoved value: -[
- "accountId",
- "includeOffBudget",
- "months"
-]v1.12.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Get', implying a read operation without detailing behavior. It does not explain how time range is handled, what includeOffBudget does, or what the response format is.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is concise but lacks essential information, which prevents it from being an exemplary 5.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 3-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description is too thin to support correct invocation. The meaning of 'over time', the optionality of accountId, and the effect of includeOffBudget are all unexplained, leaving significant ambiguity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention any of the three parameters (months, accountId, includeOffBudget). The agent receives no guidance on how these parameters affect the query or why they are optional.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource ('Get account balance history over time') that clearly conveys the tool's core function. However, it does not explicitly differentiate it from siblings like get-accounts or net-worth, which could also involve balance data, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get-accounts or net-worth. No context, exclusions, or prerequisites are provided, leaving the agent to guess the appropriate use case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.