get_reconciliation_statusCheck unreconciled transaction counts per bank account to track reconciliation progress and identify outstanding items.
Show unreconciled transaction count per bank account. Use when the user asks about reconciliation progress, unreconciled transactions, or bank account status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful detail that results are grouped per bank account and limited to unreconciled transactions, but does not disclose return shape or edge cases. This is adequate but not exceptional.
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?
Two short sentences: the first states the output, the second gives usage guidance. Every word earns its place, and the core purpose is front-loaded.
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 zero-parameter, read-only report, the description tells the agent what data it will receive (unreconciled count per bank account) and when to use it. There is no output schema, but the stated output is sufficient for correct invocation. A minor gap is not covering what 'bank account status' means exactly, especially with a sibling get_bank_accounts.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the description has no parameter information to add beyond the empty schema. Per the rubric, a no-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4.
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 states a specific verb ('Show') and a precise resource ('unreconciled transaction count per bank account'), which clearly distinguishes this from generic status tools. It goes well beyond the vague title by specifying the exact data returned.
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 description explicitly says when to use the tool ('reconciliation progress, unreconciled transactions, or bank account status'). It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the use conditions are clear enough for an agent to route requests correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.