personal-finance-mcp

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

The 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 how the tool handles Items where liabilities are not enabled (emits warnings instead of failing) and specifies the return structure, which is helpful for understanding error handling and output format.

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 in the first sentence, followed by important behavioral details and return format. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the tool, the second explains error handling, and the third clarifies the output structure. There is no wasted text.

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 (handling multiple liability types and error cases), the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, how it behaves with unsupported Items, and the return format. Since an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to detail return values further, making it well-rounded for 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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately focuses on behavior and output rather than parameters, earning a baseline score of 4 for not introducing unnecessary parameter information.

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 'Return' and specifies the exact resources: 'credit, student-loan, and mortgage liability details across all linked Items.' It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_balances or get_transactions by focusing specifically on liability data rather than balances or transactions.

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 it: for retrieving liability details across linked Items. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name specific alternatives, but the sibling tools are clearly different in scope (e.g., get_balances for balances, get_transactions for transactions), making the usage context reasonably clear.

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