It's difficult to really summarize any party without bringing in some level of partisan debate. Especially considering that UK politics has changed drastically over the last 20 years, it is difficult to really define anything without people bringing up various old and recent examples that contradict each other.
Conservatives could be considered good with money, as there was an unprecedented boom in the economy during some of Thatcher's ministry, but also events such as Black Wednesday and the 3 years of stagnation we have had with the current government would imply this is not always the case.
Labour could be considered bad with money, but also most of the Labour government of the last decade was a period of high economic growth. Their reputation of being bad with money comes from their democratic socialist policies of the late 40s/early 50s and the fact there was little preparation for an economic crash in the last Labour governments.
Lib Dems certainly are moral and inclusive, although could be considered untrustworthy for breaking some of their promises. I honestly would disagree, as I don't understand the reasoning that when in a coalition government the parties both always get what they want. In addition, many people seem to punish them for having gone into government in the first place, implying that those who voted for them didn't actually want to vote for them which is just crazy in my mind. It is difficult to define what the Lib Dems stand for too, as many of the grassroots are left leaning social democrats, but the leadership is quite neo-liberal.
As a UKIP member myself, I agree they are a protest vote in most cases, and not a vote for government. I don't think they are one-dimensional though (or any party that isn't single issue for that matter).
Your descriptions seem like a very tip of the iceberg view of the parties and I'd recommend studying each party's history some more, along with keeping up with recent news in order to develop your understanding of what they are actually like.