Pre-spend budget approval check. Verifies daily/weekly/category limits, estimates ROI from historical data, and suggests cheaper alternatives. Call this BEFORE paying for any service.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_id | Yes | Your agent identifier (must be registered first) | |
| category | Yes | Spending category | |
| amount_usd | Yes | Amount you're about to spend in USD | |
| service_id | Yes | Service you want to pay for (e.g. 'harvey-tools/scrape_url') |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the main behavioral traits: verifying limits, estimating ROI from historical data, and suggesting cheaper alternatives. There is no misleading information, though it could add details about what happens when limits are exceeded.
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 sentences with the key information front-loaded: the tool's purpose and when to call it. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or filler content.
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?
The description explains what the tool does and when to use it, but there is no output schema and the description does not mention what the return value looks like. For a check tool, understanding whether it returns approval status or a detailed report is essential; the description leaves this gap.
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 schema provides 100% parameter coverage with clear descriptions for each field, so the description does not need to add much. It adds the contextual cue that this is a pre-spend check, but does not elaborate on individual parameters beyond what the schema already states.
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 specific verbs ('verifies', 'estimates', 'suggests') and clearly identifies the resource as a pre-spend budget approval check. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_spending_report and report_spend by emphasizing it is the pre-payment validation step.
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 instruction 'Call this BEFORE paying for any service' provides explicit when-to-use guidance. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the context of 'pre-spend' versus sibling reporting tools makes the usage scenario clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: check_spend is pre-spend approval, report_spend is post-spend recording, get_spending_report is analytics, register_agent is setup, health and list_tools are system maintenance. No overlap or ambiguity.
Five tools follow the verb_noun pattern (check_spend, report_spend, get_spending_report, list_tools, register_agent). The 'health' tool is a single noun, which is a minor deviation but common for status endpoints, so the naming remains predictable overall.
Six tools is well-scoped for a budget management server. Each tool covers a necessary function without redundancy, and the count is neither too sparse nor overwhelming.
The core budget lifecycle is covered: register_agent, check_spend, report_spend, and get_spending_report provide a complete spend management flow. Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit delete/removal tool for agents (though register_agent upserts) and no category-level budget configuration, but these are workable.