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 and does so effectively. It discloses key behavioral traits: it requires specific scopes ('Requires cash account scopes'), supports pagination ('Supports cursor-based pagination'), and describes the return format ('Returns complete statement objects with period details and transaction summaries'). This covers authentication needs, data retrieval behavior, and output structure, though it could add more on rate limits 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 core purpose in the first sentence, followed by essential behavioral details. Every sentence earns its place: the first defines the action, the second covers prerequisites, the third explains pagination, and the fourth describes returns. It is appropriately sized with zero waste, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 (a read operation with pagination and scopes), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, usage context, behavioral traits, and return content. However, it could be more explicit about error cases or rate limits, and without an output schema, some details on response structure are implied but not fully specified, leaving a minor gap.

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 parameters (account_id, cursor, limit) with details like default and max values. The description adds marginal value by implying account_id is required for listing statements and cursor is for pagination, but it does not provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema offers. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('List'), resource ('finalized statements'), and scope ('for a specific cash account by account ID'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_cudget or get_transactions. It specifies the exact type of statements (finalized) and their content (with period details and transaction summaries), making the purpose highly specific and differentiated.

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 by stating 'Requires cash account scopes' and 'Supports cursor-based pagination', which guides when to use it (for paginated listing of finalized statements). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., vs. get_card_statements_primary), leaving some room for improvement in sibling differentiation.

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