mcp-server-getalife

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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and closed-world. The description adds context about what the tool does (calculation, assessment, projection) which goes beyond the safety profile in annotations. However, it doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like performance characteristics, error handling, or specific projection methodology that would be valuable for an agent.

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 appropriately sized with three sentences. The first sentence clearly states the core functionality, the second provides the formula, and the third gives usage guidance. While efficient, the middle sentence about 'most important number' could be considered slightly promotional rather than purely functional.

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 (financial calculation with assessment and projection), no output schema, and rich annotations, the description is adequate but has gaps. It explains what the tool does but doesn't describe the format of the health assessment, the projection methodology, or what specific values are returned. For a tool with multiple outputs beyond simple calculation, more detail would be helpful.

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 100% schema description coverage, the schema already fully documents all 4 parameters. The description mentions 'assets and liabilities' and 'monthly savings for wealth projection' which aligns with but doesn't add meaningful semantics beyond what the schema provides. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 calculates net worth from assets and liabilities, provides health assessment, and projects future wealth growth. It distinguishes the tool by emphasizing it's 'the single most important number in personal finance,' though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'calculate_financial_runway' or 'budget_summary' which might overlap in financial analysis.

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 usage context: 'Use this when someone wants to know their net worth, understand their financial position, or see how their wealth might grow.' This gives explicit when-to-use guidance. However, it doesn't mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools, which would be needed for a perfect score.

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