Brex MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses pagination behavior and automatic money annotation in returns, which is valuable. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or whether this is a read-only operation (though 'retrieve' implies it).

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 at two sentences, front-loaded with core functionality. Every sentence adds value: first covers retrieval with filters, second covers expansion and return format. No wasted words.

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 operation with 5 parameters and 100% schema coverage but no output schema, the description adequately covers the core functionality. However, it lacks details about response structure beyond money annotation, doesn't explain pagination mechanics (e.g., cursor/token), and doesn't address error cases or performance considerations.

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 thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it mentions optional filters for status, type, and amount (though 'amount' isn't in the schema) and expansion support, but doesn't provide additional semantic context.

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 retrieves a paginated list of expenses with optional filters, distinguishing it from siblings like get_expense (singular) and get_all_expenses (no filters mentioned). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from get_all_card_expenses or get_card_expense, which are more specific variants.

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 for retrieving filtered expense lists and supports expansion of related objects, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_all_expenses or get_expense. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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