personal-finance-mcp

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds valuable context beyond this: it specifies that the tool returns warnings for unhealthy Items (e.g., re-auth required) or API errors, which helps the agent understand error handling and Item health status. However, it doesn't detail rate limits, pagination, or other behavioral traits.

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 highly concise and well-structured: two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and output format. The first sentence states what it does, and the second explains the return structure and warnings. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 (a list operation with health checks), annotations cover safety (readOnlyHint), and an output schema exists, the description is mostly complete. It explains the return structure and warnings, which is crucial for understanding Item health. However, it lacks usage guidelines relative to siblings, leaving a minor gap in contextual understanding.

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 doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on output behavior. This meets the baseline expectation for tools with no 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's purpose: 'List every account across all linked Items, with balances.' This specifies the verb ('List'), resource ('accounts'), and scope ('across all linked Items, with balances'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_balances' or 'get_transactions', which might have overlapping functionality.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions returning warnings for unhealthy Items, but doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'get_balances' or 'get_institutions_status'. This leaves the agent without clear usage context.

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