Record a new expense by specifying date, amount, and category, with optional note and subcategory, to keep personal finances updated.
Add a new expense entry.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | Yes | ||
| note | No | ||
| amount | Yes | ||
| category | Yes | ||
| subcategory | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that a new expense entry is added, with no mention of duplicate handling, ID generation, validation rules, or response behavior. For a write operation, this is sparse.
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?
One sentence with no filler, and the action is front-loaded. It does not waste words, though the brevity comes at the cost of substance.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the missing parameter semantics and zero annotations leave critical gaps. An agent cannot infer required value formats or categories, making the description incomplete for a five-parameter create tool.
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 compensate. It offers no explanation of date format, amount constraints, allowed categories, or how note and subcategory defaults behave. With five parameters, the description adds virtually no meaning beyond the input schema.
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 ('Add') and resource ('expense entry'), and the verb alone separates it from siblings such as list_expenses, update_expense, delete_expense, and search_expenses. There is no ambiguity about which expense operation this is.
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?
Provides no context about when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_expense or search_expenses. There are no prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions, so the when-to-use guidance is only tautologically implied by the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.