get_categoriesFetch all expense categories and subcategories for structured spending analytics. Use cached data to enable category breakdowns and trend analysis for Splitwise expenses.
Get all expense categories and subcategories. Results are cached.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds the useful trait that 'Results are cached,' implying possible staleness, and 'Get' implies a read-only operation. However, it does not mention permissions, potential side effects, or how caching might affect freshness.
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?
The description is two short sentences with no filler. The key action and scope are front-loaded, and the caching note is concise and relevant.
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 tool with an output schema, the description is mostly sufficient. It states the resource and a behavioral caveat (caching). It could be slightly stronger with a note about when the cached data refreshes, but it is otherwise complete enough for effective tool invocation.
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 baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics and adds no confusing or contradictory parameter information.
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 clearly states the verb and resource: 'Get all expense categories and subcategories.' It is unambiguous about scope. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'resolve_category', so it misses the top score for sibling differentiation.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like resolve_category. The description only states what the tool does, not the appropriate usage context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.