Get total expenses grouped by category for any inclusive date range, with an optional category filter. Use this to review spending and identify where money goes between specific dates.
Summarize expenses by category within an inclusive date range.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| category | No | ||
| 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 carries the full burden. It transparently discloses the inclusive date-range behavior and the category grouping, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe edge cases such as expenses without categories or with empty ranges. Some behavioral context is provided, though not complete.
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 concise sentence with no wasted words. The key scoping qualifier 'inclusive date range' is integrated efficiently, making the definition easy to parse and remember.
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 output schema exists, the lack of return-value detail is acceptable. However, because there are no annotations and the schema has low parameter coverage, the description should clarify category semantics and date format to be fully self-sufficient. It is adequate but leaves an agent to infer some important call details.
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%, so the description must compensate. It adds 'inclusive' for the date bounds and suggests category plays a role in the summary, but it never specifies the expected date format or what a null/omitted category means. The ambiguity between 'group by category' and 'filter to a specific category' leaves critical parameter semantics unclear.
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 a specific verb ('summarize'), a resource ('expenses'), a grouping dimension ('by category'), and date-range semantics ('inclusive'). This distinguishes it from the sibling mutation and raw-list tools, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.
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 verb 'summarize' implies aggregation, so an agent can infer when to choose this over list_expenses or search_expenses, but the description does not explicitly state when to use it or when not to use alternatives. The usage context is implied rather than stated, leaving room for misselection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.