personal-finance-mcp

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: it specifies the underlying API (Plaid /transactions/get), pagination behavior (offset pagination with count=500 per page), date clipping behavior (windows older than ~2 years are clipped with warning), and that it works across 'all healthy Items'. This significantly enhances understanding of how the tool behaves.

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?

Three sentences with zero waste: first states core purpose, second provides date format and API details, third explains edge case behavior. Every sentence adds essential information, and the structure is front-loaded with the main 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 has readOnlyHint annotation, an output schema exists, and the description covers key behavioral aspects (API source, pagination, date handling), this is complete enough. The description doesn't need to explain return values since an output schema exists, and it provides sufficient context for proper tool selection and invocation.

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 compensates well by explaining the date parameters (ISO YYYY-MM-DD format, date range behavior with clipping). However, it doesn't mention the optional 'account_ids' parameter at all, leaving one of three parameters undocumented. The description adds substantial meaning for the documented parameters.

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 fetches transactions within a date range across all healthy Items, using specific verb 'fetch' and resource 'transactions'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_transactions' by specifying it's a date-range fetch across all items rather than a search operation.

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 fetching across all healthy Items) but doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like 'search_transactions' or mention when not to use it. The sibling tools list shows alternatives exist, but no explicit guidance is given.

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