NimBooks

Daily statement

get_statement

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch day-by-day money in and out for a year or month, priced at CoinGecko daily close in USD for each UTC day—matching NimBooks tax statements.

Instructions

Day-by-day money in and out for a year (or one month of it), priced at the CoinGecko daily close in USD for each UTC day — the same basis the NimBooks tax statement uses. Read-only: never signs, never sends. Failed transactions are excluded and fees are counted on outgoing transactions only. Staking rewards (restaking payouts) are included as in-day income; moving NIM into or out of the staking contract is not a fiat flow, so it is excluded, exactly like the app’s statement. Nimiq Pay’s round trips through its own contracts go in internalInNim/internalOutNim, not in or out, as in the app. Days with no price available come back with closeUsd: null rather than a guess.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "year": "<year>"
    },
    "name": "get_statement"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`year`	Yes	Calendar year, UTC — e.g. 2026.
`month`	No	Optional month 1–12. Omit for the whole year.
`address`	No	Nimiq address (NQ form, spaced or flat, or 40 hex characters). Optional; defaults to the server’s configured address.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 24, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, yet the description adds substantive behavior beyond them: failed transactions excluded, fees counted on outgoing only, staking rewards treated as in-day income, staking-contract transfers excluded as non-fiat flow, and Nimiq Pay round trips routed to internalInNim/internalOutNim. It also discloses the null-price fallback ('closeUsd: null rather than a guess'), which is exactly the kind of edge-case behavior an agent needs.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The definition is front-loaded with purpose before the accounting-detail caveats, and nearly every clause carries information (exclusion rules, pricing basis, null handling). It is dense and slightly long — a few sentences bundle multiple rules — but there is no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of return-shape disclosure and does so: it names closeUsd, internalInNim/internalOutNim, and the null case for missing prices. Combined with the read-only annotations and fully described params, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents year, month, and address including the UTC calendar-year meaning and the address default. The description reinforces the month-omission behavior and UTC-day basis but adds little parameter-level syntax beyond what the schema states, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The opening clause names a specific verb and resource — 'day-by-day money in and out for a year (or one month of it)' — and pins the valuation basis to CoinGecko daily close in USD. The daily granularity and fiat pricing distinguish it from an aggregate sibling like get_summary without needing to name it.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage context is implied through the year/month scoping ('omit for the whole year') and the repeated reference to 'the same basis the NimBooks tax statement uses,' which tells the agent when this tool is the right one for tax/statement work. However, no sibling is named and no explicit when-not-to-use condition or alternative (e.g. get_summary, get_rewards) is offered.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server