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 describing a data retrieval operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains that the tool joins holdings with securities data, adds institution information to each holding, and describes the response structure including warnings. No contradictions with annotations exist.

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 three sentences: purpose statement, data joining explanation, and return format. Every sentence adds essential information with zero wasted words, and it's front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 (data joining across multiple sources), rich annotations (readOnlyHint), and the presence of an output schema (implied by the return format description), the description is complete. It covers the tool's behavior, data integration approach, and output structure without needing to duplicate schema details.

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 description coverage, the baseline is 4. The description appropriately explains that no inputs are required and focuses on what the tool returns, which is sufficient given 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 with specific verbs ('return investment holdings', 'joins holdings with securities list') and resources ('holdings with security metadata across all linked Items'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on investment holdings specifically, unlike tools like get_transactions or get_balances.

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 when investment holdings with security metadata are needed, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_investment_transactions or other sibling tools. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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