Query consumption trends over a specified period to analyze wallet spending patterns.
Get consumption trend for a given number of days
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "wallet_trend"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | Number of days to query (default: 30) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It implies a read operation (getting a trend) but does not explicitly state safety, authorization needs, or side effects. The description is minimally adequate but not detailed.
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 sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, containing no superfluous words.
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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the basic purpose but omits what the trend output looks like. Since there is no output schema, the description should ideally explain return values, which it does not. Thus, completeness is adequate but not thorough.
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% since the only parameter 'days' has a description with default. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, earning the baseline score of 3.
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 clearly states the tool retrieves a 'consumption trend' for a given number of days. The verb 'Get' and resource 'consumption trend' are specific and distinct from sibling tools like wallet_balance, wallet_corporate_info, wallet_coupons, and wallet_transactions, which each target different data aspects.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description lacks any guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives. It does not specify prerequisites, context, or scenarios where this tool is preferred, leaving the agent without decision support for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.