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 well by disclosing key behavioral traits: authentication requirements ('Requires cash account scopes'), pagination support, parameter limitations, and return format details ('Returns transactions with money annotation'). It provides substantial operational context beyond basic functionality.

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 with four concise sentences, each adding distinct value: purpose statement, authentication requirement, pagination support, parameter limitations, and return format. There's no wasted text, and important information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 read-only list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides strong context about authentication, pagination, parameter limitations, and return format. It covers most essential operational aspects, though additional details about error conditions or response structure could further enhance completeness.

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 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds some value by mentioning client-side filtering for posted_at_date and noting parameter limitations, but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema descriptions.

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 settled transactions') and resource ('for a specific cash account'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_all_accounts or get_transactions by focusing on cash accounts and settled status. It provides precise scope information that helps differentiate its purpose.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('List settled transactions for a specific cash account') and provides important exclusions ('Does not support posted_at_start or expand parameters'), though it doesn't name specific alternative tools for different scenarios. It gives clear context about what the tool does and doesn't support.

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