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 adds useful context beyond basic functionality: it mentions pagination ('Returns paginated budget list'), details about return values ('amount details'), and filtering capabilities. However, it doesn't cover aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or whether this is a read-only operation (though 'List' implies reading).

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 two sentences: the first states the core purpose and key features, and the second details return values and pagination. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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's moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, filtering, pagination, and return details. However, without annotations or an output schema, it could benefit from more behavioral context (e.g., error handling, rate limits) to fully compensate for the lack of structured data, preventing a perfect score.

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 fully documents all four parameters. The description adds marginal value by mentioning filtering by 'parent budget and status,' which aligns with parameters 'parent_budget_id' and 'spend_budget_status,' but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema specifies. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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: 'List budget allocations with spending limits and current status.' It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('budget allocations') with additional details about what information is included. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_budget' or 'get_spend_limits,' which prevents a perfect score.

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 context by mentioning filtering capabilities ('Supports filtering by parent budget and status'), which suggests when to use this tool for filtered queries. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'get_budget' or 'get_spend_limits,' nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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