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 for behavioral disclosure. It mentions pagination and filtering capabilities but lacks critical details: whether this is a read-only operation, authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what the response format looks like. For a search tool with 15 parameters, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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: first stating core purpose, then listing supported filters. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, though it could be slightly more front-loaded by mentioning the extensive parameter set earlier.

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 complexity (15 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address critical aspects: response format, pagination mechanics beyond mentioning it exists, error handling, or how multiple filters interact. For a sophisticated search tool, this leaves too much undefined for effective agent use.

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 15 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by listing some filter types (date range, type, tag, status, external ID) but doesn't provide additional context about parameter interactions, default behaviors, or usage examples that aren't already 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 tool's purpose as 'Search and filter company transactions with pagination', which specifies the verb (search/filter), resource (company transactions), and key capability (pagination). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_transaction' (singular retrieval) and 'list_invoices/payments' (specific resource types), though it doesn't explicitly mention these distinctions.

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 context through 'Supports filtering by date range, type, tag, status, external ID, and more', suggesting this is the primary tool for complex transaction queries. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus simpler alternatives like 'get_transaction' or when not to use it (e.g., for single transactions).

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