Record a completed spend with optional outcome tracking. Call this AFTER paying for a service to track spending and build ROI history.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_id | Yes | Your agent identifier | |
| category | Yes | Spending category | |
| amount_usd | Yes | Amount spent in USD | |
| service_id | Yes | Service that was used | |
| value_received | No | Description of value received | |
| outcome_success | No | Whether the service call succeeded |
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, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful context about the post-payment timing and persistent ROI history, but it does not disclose details about idempotency, validation failures, or permissions. The behavior is clear enough for a simple recording tool, but not deeply transparent.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action ('Record a completed spend') and includes only essential usage guidance. No filler or redundancy.
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 six-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides essential context: it is for completed spends, tracks outcomes, and builds ROI history. It is nearly complete, though it could mention duplicate handling or confirmation, but that is a minor 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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so all parameters are already described. The description adds the concept of 'optional outcome tracking', which hints at value_received and outcome_success, but it does not provide additional syntax or format details beyond the schema.
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: 'Record a completed spend' with optional outcome tracking. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like check_spend and get_spending_report by being the action of recording rather than checking or retrieving.
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?
It explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Call this AFTER paying for a service to track spending and build ROI history.' This provides clear timing and purpose, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion cases.
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.