Generate monthly or weekly reports of income, expenses, and net cash flow from Actual Budget, optionally filtered by account.
Report income, expenses, and net cash flow per month or week. Returns JSON; amounts are integer cents.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| months | Yes | Number of most recent months to report on | |
| interval | Yes | Bucket size for each row of the report | monthly |
| accountId | No | Restrict the report to a single account |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.13.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full load. It discloses the return format (JSON) and the unit convention (amounts are integer cents), which is genuinely useful behavioral detail, but says nothing about read-only nature, auth requirements, or volume/pagination behavior for multi-month or weekly reports.
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?
Two short sentences with zero filler; the reporting scope is front-loaded and the output-format caveat follows. Nothing here could be trimmed without losing information.
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?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description usefully covers the return format and unit convention, and the schema fully documents all three parameters. The missing piece is usage context versus the many sibling report tools, which an agent would have to infer.
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 100%, so months, interval, and accountId are already explained in the schema. The description's 'per month or week' and 'integer cents' loosely reinforce interval and output units but add no syntax or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, making the 3 baseline appropriate.
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?
States a specific verb (Report) plus the exact resource (income, expenses, net cash flow) and the bucketing granularity (per month or week). This is clear enough for an agent to distinguish it from aggregation siblings like monthly-summary or spending-by-category, but it never names or contrasts those siblings explicitly.
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 choose this report over monthly-summary, budget-vs-actual, or category-trends, nor any stated prerequisites. The description only indicates what the tool produces, leaving the selection decision entirely to inference from the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.