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 context beyond this: it discloses the internal workflow (calls /accounts/get first, then /transactions/recurring/get) and the output structure, which helps the agent understand the tool's behavior and potential latency or dependencies.

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 main purpose, followed by implementation details and output format in a clear, bullet-like structure. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 (internal API calls), annotations (readOnlyHint), and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete: it explains the purpose, workflow, and output, providing all necessary context for the agent to use the tool effectively without over-explaining.

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 compensates by explaining the internal process and output, adding meaningful context about what the tool does without parameters, which is helpful for the agent.

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 ('Return recurring inflow and outflow streams') and resource ('across all linked Items'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_transactions or get_balances by focusing on recurring patterns rather than one-time transactions or 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 for fetching recurring transaction streams, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_transactions or search_transactions, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions, leaving some ambiguity.

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