Cresium MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the return fields (balance, lockedBalance, etc.) which is helpful, but lacks critical behavioral details: whether this requires authentication, if it's real-time or cached data, rate limits, error conditions, or if it returns all wallets or a subset. For a financial data tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 perfectly concise: two sentences that directly state the action and output. Every word earns its place—no fluff, repetition, or ambiguity. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('Get wallet balances') followed by specific return details.

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 (financial data retrieval), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and return fields but misses behavioral context (auth, data freshness, scoping). Without an output schema, describing return values is valuable, but more operational details would improve 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?

The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema). The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist. It earns a 4 because it correctly focuses on output semantics instead, listing the returned balance fields, which adds value beyond the empty input schema.

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: 'Get wallet balances for the company' with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('wallet balances'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_transaction or search_transactions by focusing on balances rather than transactions. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings (e.g., list_invoices/payments also retrieve financial data).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, frequency, or contextual triggers (e.g., before creating payments/transfers). With siblings like confirm_transaction and create_transfer_preview that might involve balance checks, the lack of usage differentiation is a significant gap.

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