Cresium MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it 'returns the full list' without disclosing behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether it's read-only. The phrase 'full list' hints at completeness but lacks operational details needed for safe invocation.

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 action and resource, the second specifies the return content. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no words, though it could be slightly more polished for a perfect score.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers what the tool does and what it returns but lacks context on usage versus siblings and behavioral transparency, making it minimally viable for this low-complexity case.

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, so the schema already fully documents the absence of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it appropriately avoids discussing nonexistent parameters, earning a baseline score above minimum viable.

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') and resource ('company payments') with specific scope ('all'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_transactions' or 'list_invoices', 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_transactions' or 'get_transaction'. It mentions returning 'full list of payments' but doesn't specify if this is for comprehensive reporting versus filtered searches, leaving the agent without usage context.

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