Retrieve expenses within an inclusive date range to review spending history and support budgeting decisions.
List expenses within an inclusive date range.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end_date | Yes | ||
| start_date | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the disclosure burden; 'List' implies read-only and 'inclusive date range' adds a boundary detail. However, it does not explicitly state side-effect safety, ordering, pagination, or failure behavior, though the output schema covers the return shape.
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?
A six-word sentence that is front-loaded and contains no filler. Every word earns its place.
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 simple two-parameter list tool with an output schema, this is adequate but not complete: it lacks date-format conventions, an explicit read-only/side-effect statement since no annotations exist, and a pointer to when search_expenses or summarize would be the better choice.
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 only says the range is inclusive; it does not specify date format, timezone, or deeper meaning beyond the parameter names. The names are self-explanatory, but the description does not substantially compensate for absent schema descriptions.
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 ('List'), resource ('expenses'), and an explicit date-range scope with inclusive bounds. It clearly describes the operation, but does not differentiate it from the sibling search_expenses, which may overlap in behavior.
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?
No guidance about when to choose this tool over search_expenses or summarize. The description only states what it does, leaving alternative selection to agent inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.