t2000

t2000_limit

Retrieve your configured per-transaction and daily spending limits to stay within your set caps before any write operation.

Instructions

View the user's opt-in spending limits as set via the CLI (t2 limit set --per-tx <USD> and t2 limit set --daily <USD>). Reads ~/.t2000/config.json. Returns { configured: false } when no limits are set.

IMPORTANT: This tool is READ-ONLY. Setting or clearing limits must be done via the CLI (the user has terminal access; security boundary). To suggest a limit change, ask the user to run t2 limit set --per-tx 50 or t2 limit reset in their terminal.

Use the returned values to inform the user about their own configured caps before writes — e.g., if they set a $50 per-tx cap, surface that context when they ask for a $200 send so they can decide whether to lower the amount or run t2 limit reset first.

Tool call template

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": "t2000_limit"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv10.14.1Jul 28, 2026
Removedv10.2.0Jul 22, 2026
Addedv9.12.0Jul 18, 2026
Removedv9.8.0Jul 17, 2026
Addedv4.0.0May 26, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses the tool is read-only, reads config from ~/.t2000/config.json, and returns { configured: false } when no limits are set. No contradictions.

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 description is well-structured and front-loaded with the primary purpose. While it includes necessary behavioral and usage details, it is slightly verbose but remains efficient.

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?

Given no output schema, the description completely covers the tool's purpose, return values, read-only nature, and how to interpret and act on the output. It is self-contained.

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

Parameters5/5

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

The tool has no parameters; schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by explaining the output format and the meaning of the return values, which is beyond the schema's scope.

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 description clearly states the tool views spending limits set via CLI, using specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes this tool from siblings as it's the only one dealing with spending limits.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description advises using the tool before writes to inform about caps, and suggests CLI commands for changes. It doesn't explicitly compare to other tools but provides clear context on when to use it.

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