Build a read-only Sankey-style monthly budget flow from allocation percentages.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| currency | Yes | ||
| food_pct | Yes | ||
| housing_pct | Yes | ||
| savings_pct | Yes | ||
| transport_pct | Yes | ||
| utilities_pct | Yes | ||
| monthly_income | Yes | ||
| discretionary_pct | Yes |
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?
The description declares the tool as 'read-only', which is a behavioral trait, but does not elaborate on other aspects such as whether data is stored, what happens on invalid inputs, or the output format. With no annotations, the description carries the burden but only partially fulfills it.
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 a single sentence, which is concise and front-loaded with the key action. No unnecessary words. However, it could benefit from structured breakdown of parameters or usage notes.
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?
Given the tool has 8 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not specify output format, constraints (e.g., percentages must sum to 100), error handling, or what a Sankey diagram looks like in the response.
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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. However, it only generically mentions 'allocation percentages' without explaining any of the 8 parameters individually. Users get no guidance on the meaning or expected values of parameters like housing_pct, food_pct, etc.
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 tool builds a Sankey-style monthly budget flow from allocation percentages. The verb 'build' and resource 'budget flow' plus format 'Sankey-style' make the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like portfolio analysis and salary comparison by focusing on budget visualization.
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 implies usage for visualizing a budget breakdown but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites such as ensuring percentages sum to 100%. No 'when not to use' guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
