get_expensesFetch expense records using optional filters for date, group, friend, and pagination limits.
List expenses with optional filters. Dates are ISO 8601 format. Max limit is 100.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| group_id | No | ||
| friend_id | No | ||
| dated_after | No | ||
| dated_before | No | ||
| updated_after | No | ||
| updated_before | No |
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the 100-result maximum and ISO 8601 date format, but it omits key behaviors such as how filters combine, whether group_id and friend_id are mutually exclusive, default sort order, and pagination semantics. Partial transparency at best.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by the two most important invocation constraints (date format and result cap). Every sentence earns its place, though for 8 undocumented parameters, slightly more detail would have improved the tradeoff without hurting readability.
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?
Despite the output schema covering return values, the tool has 8 parameters with zero schema descriptions and zero annotations. The description only addresses date format and limit cap, leaving filter semantics, parameter relationships, and pagination behavior unspecified. For a list endpoint of this complexity, the definition is incomplete.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for all 8 parameters. It adds meaning to the date parameters (ISO 8601) and limit (max 100), but says nothing about group_id, friend_id, or offset beyond calling everything 'optional filters.' The compensation is only partial for a large, fully undocumented parameter set.
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 uses a specific verb and resource ('List expenses') and indicates the tool is a filtered listing operation. It is clear enough to be distinguished from singular get_expense, but it does not explicitly differentiate from search_expenses or other listing siblings, and the name itself carries the differentiation load.
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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus get_expense, search_expenses, or analyze_spending. It states that filters exist but provides no context on typical use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer selection criteria from names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.