List available transaction categories for a given cashflow month, including variable, excluded, and tracking categories with IDs, so you can choose where to move a transaction.
The categories a transaction can be moved to with move_transaction: variable, excluded, and the user's tracking categories (with their ids), as of the given month.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| month | Yes | Cashflow month, YYYY-MM. |
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 burden and does reasonably well: it discloses the returned contents (variable, excluded, tracking categories with their ids) and the temporal scoping ('as of the given month', implying the result changes month to month). It omits the auth/session requirement implied by riseup_login siblings and does not explicitly state the operation is read-only.
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 single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the enumeration and month scoping are the payload. Slightly awkward fragment phrasing costs it the top score, but nothing is redundant.
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 one-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description conveys enough: what comes back, what the month controls, and which sibling consumes the result. Remaining gaps (auth requirements, whether non-tracking categories carry ids, id stability) are minor for this complexity level.
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 coverage is 100%, so the single 'month' parameter (YYYY-MM, Cashflow month) is already fully documented. The description only reinforces that the answer is scoped to that month; it adds no format or edge-case detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
Names the exact resource (the categories a transaction can be moved to), enumerates their kinds (variable, excluded, tracking categories with ids), and ties them to the consuming sibling tool move_transaction. It is a noun phrase rather than a verb+resource, but an agent can still distinguish it from list_transactions or get_budget without opening a schema.
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?
By naming move_transaction as the consumer, it makes the use case clear: fetch this list to discover valid category values before moving a transaction. It gives no explicit when-not conditions, prerequisites, or alternative tools, so it falls short of the top score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.