personal-finance-mcp

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: it discloses that 'No additional network calls beyond what `all_items` already makes' and uses a '5-minute health cache'. This explains performance characteristics and caching behavior beyond what annotations cover, though it doesn't mention error handling or rate limits.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by behavioral details and output format. Every sentence adds value: the first states what it does, the second explains caching/network behavior, the third clarifies scope, and the fourth documents returns. 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?

Given 0 parameters, annotations covering read-only safety, and an output schema (implied by context signals), the description is mostly complete. It explains the tool's behavior, caching, and output structure. However, it could benefit from mentioning prerequisites (e.g., requires linked items) or error cases for full 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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 4. The description appropriately adds no parameter information since none exist, and instead focuses on output semantics by detailing the return structure, which is helpful given the output schema exists but isn't provided here.

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: 'Return health status for every linked Item/institution' with specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on health status rather than financial data like balances or transactions, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 'linked Item/institution' and mentions it 'uses the 5-minute health cache', suggesting it's for checking system health rather than real-time data. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions.

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