ChartMogul MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes critical behavioral traits: it discloses that monetary values are in integer cents (requiring division by 100), details the return structure (entries array with specific fields and a summary object), and provides syntax examples for filters. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and critical monetary value warning, but it becomes lengthy due to detailed parameter explanations and examples. While informative, some parts (like the full list of return fields) could be more streamlined. Every sentence adds value, but the structure could be more concise for easier parsing.

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 complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is largely complete. It covers the purpose, parameters, return format, and critical behavioral notes. However, it lacks information on error cases, pagination, or authentication requirements, which would be helpful for a tool with multiple parameters and no structured output schema.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema: it explains that start_date, end_date, and interval are required with specific formats (YYYY-MM-DD and allowed values like 'day', 'week', etc.), clarifies that geo uses ISO 3166-1 Alpha-2 codes, details how to format plans and filters with syntax examples, and provides an example for monetary values. This goes well beyond the schema's basic titles.

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's purpose: 'Retrieve all key metrics for time period.' It specifies the exact resource (key metrics) and verb (retrieve), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like arpa_metrics, arr_metrics, etc., which retrieve individual metrics rather than all metrics together.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: to retrieve all key metrics for a time period. It mentions the 'get_cfl_fields tool for complete field list' as a related tool, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus individual metric tools or other alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.