personal-finance-mcp

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds valuable behavioral context beyond this: the 2-year clipping behavior with warnings, pagination details (count=500 per page), that it returns joined security metadata, and the specific response structure. This significantly enhances understanding of the tool's behavior.

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 perfectly structured and front-loaded: first sentence states the core purpose, subsequent sentences add crucial behavioral details in logical order (date format, pagination, clipping behavior, metadata joining, return structure). Every sentence earns its place with zero 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 the tool's complexity (date-range queries with clipping behavior, pagination, joined metadata) and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It explains all critical behavioral aspects, parameter semantics, and the response structure, providing everything needed to use the tool effectively beyond what structured fields offer.

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% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: start_date and end_date as ISO YYYY-MM-DD dates defining the inclusive range. It also adds important semantic constraints about the 2-year clipping behavior that aren't captured in the 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 specific action ('Fetch investment transactions') with precise scope ('in [start_date, end_date] across all healthy Items'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_transactions by specifying investment transactions and from get_investment_holdings by focusing on transactions rather than holdings.

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 clear context about when to use this tool (date-range queries for investment transactions) and implicitly distinguishes it from siblings by specifying the resource type. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives like get_transactions for non-investment transactions.

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