personal-finance-mcp

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, which the description aligns with by using 'Get' (a read operation). The description adds value by specifying 'live current + available balances', hinting at real-time data and multiple balance types, but doesn't disclose rate limits, auth needs, or error behaviors beyond what's in the schema. With annotations covering safety, this is adequate but not rich.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the action, resource, and key qualifiers without fluff. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 low complexity (1 optional parameter), high schema coverage (100%), presence of annotations (readOnlyHint), and an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It specifies the data type ('balances') and scope ('for accounts'), though it could benefit from clarifying distinctions from siblings to fully guide usage.

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 fully documents the 'account_ids' parameter. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond implying filtering by accounts, which the schema already covers. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 'Get' and resource 'balances' with qualifiers 'live current + available' and scope 'for accounts', making the purpose specific. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_accounts' or 'get_liabilities', which might also return balance-related information in different contexts.

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 'list_accounts' (which might include balances) or 'get_liabilities' (which could overlap). It lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives, leaving usage context implied at best.

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