get_budgetRead the active budget, amount spent, remaining balance, and pending proposal count before spending on a human's behalf. Read-only; does not alter the ledger or contact payment providers.
Read the active budget, amount spent, amount remaining, and the count of pending proposals. Does not change the ledger, spend money, or contact Stripe or Link.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds value beyond that by ruling out external side effects with Stripe or Link and by describing what is returned. It does not cover pagination or freshness, but the extra context is meaningful.
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 tight sentence front-loads what is read and follows with the explicit exclusions. Every clause earns its place with no filler.
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 no-param, read-only tool with no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it enumerates the returned fields and rules out side effects. It could note freshness or failure modes, but an agent has enough to invoke it correctly.
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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description compensates slightly by listing the values returned in place of the absent output schema, though there is no parameter semantics to clarify.
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?
States a specific verb (read) and resource (budget) and enumerates the returned values (amount spent, remaining, pending proposals count), which lets an agent distinguish it from the mutation siblings. It stops short of naming an alternative like set_budget explicitly, but the read scope is 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?
Provides negative guidance ('does not change the ledger, spend money, or contact Stripe or Link') that implicitly separates it from set_budget, propose_purchase, and refund_receipt, but never states when to call it or names a sibling to prefer instead. Usage is inferable rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.