ChartMogul MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing critical behavioral traits: ASP values are in integer cents requiring division by 100, the specific return format (entries array with date, asp, asp_percentage_change plus summary object), and interval constraints (day/week NOT supported). However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the most critical information (ASP integer cents warning) first. Every sentence earns its place, though the example at the end could be slightly more integrated. Overall efficient with zero wasted text.

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 6 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides excellent coverage of inputs, return format, and critical constraints. It's nearly complete for this complexity level, though could benefit from mentioning authentication or error handling. The absence of an output schema makes the return format explanation particularly valuable.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining all 6 parameters: clearly marking 3 as REQUIRED with format details (YYYY-MM-DD dates, specific interval values), listing 3 OPTIONAL parameters, providing syntax examples for filters (CFL syntax), and referencing 'get_cfl_fields' for field lists. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare 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 explicitly states the tool retrieves Average Sale Price metrics from ChartMogul API, specifying ASP = Average first invoice amount of new customers. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'all_metrics', 'arpa_metrics', or 'arr_metrics' by focusing specifically on ASP calculations.

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 about when to use this tool (for ASP metrics) and mentions an alternative tool ('get_cfl_fields' for filter field lists), but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it versus other metrics tools like 'mrr_metrics' or 'ltv_metrics'.

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