Brex 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 key behaviors: automatic pagination handling, support for multiple filtering types, aggregated results with summary statistics, and batching guidance for large date ranges. It doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling, but covers the core operational behavior well.

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 efficiently structured in three sentences that each add value: first establishes core functionality, second lists filtering capabilities and output, third provides specific usage guidance. No wasted words, and key information is front-loaded.

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 complex tool with 11 parameters and no output schema, the description provides good contextual completeness. It explains the tool's scope, filtering capabilities, pagination behavior, and batching guidance. The main gap is lack of output format details (what 'aggregated results with summary statistics' means), but given the complexity and absence of annotations, it covers most essential context.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 11 parameters thoroughly. The description adds some context by mentioning date range filtering, amount filtering, status filtering, merchant search, and the window_days batching purpose, but doesn't provide additional semantic details beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is high.

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 with specific verbs ('fetch all expenses') and resource scope ('across multiple pages with automatic pagination handling'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_expense' (singular) and 'get_expenses' (likely less comprehensive) by emphasizing comprehensive retrieval with pagination and filtering capabilities.

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 usage ('Use window_days to batch large date ranges') and implies this is for bulk retrieval with filtering. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'get_expenses' or 'get_all_card_expenses', which would require more specific sibling differentiation.

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