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 does an excellent job describing key behavioral traits: the default limit warning, pagination behavior ('Response includes cursor/has_more'), monetary value interpretation (INTEGER CENTS requiring division by 100), and the specific activity types available. The only minor gap is lack of explicit rate limit or authentication requirements.

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 core purpose. Each sentence adds value: purpose, limit warning, return format details, monetary value explanation, and parameter semantics. While comprehensive, it maintains good structure with clear sections marked by keywords like 'CRITICAL', 'Example', and 'FILTERS'.

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 tool with 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides excellent coverage of what the tool does, how to use it, parameter meanings, and return format details. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit error handling or authentication context, but given the comprehensive parameter and behavioral coverage, this is quite complete.

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 providing rich semantic information for all parameters. It explains the date filters (ISO 8601 format), type parameter values ('new_biz', 'reactivation', etc.), order parameter options ('-date' for descending, 'date' for ascending), and the limit parameter's default and warning. This goes well beyond what the bare schema provides.

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 specific action ('List customer activities') and resource ('across all customers'), with explicit scope ('revenue movements: new subscriptions, upgrades, downgrades, churn'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_customer_activities' by specifying it covers all customers rather than per-customer activities.

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 (listing revenue activities across all customers) and includes a critical usage warning about the default limit of 20 items to avoid excessive token usage. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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