Marlo MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but fails to disclose any behavioral traits. It doesn't indicate if this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, how data is returned, or any rate limits or constraints, making it inadequate for a tool with three required parameters.

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 extremely concise with no wasted words, consisting of a single three-word phrase. It is front-loaded but under-specified, which is a completeness issue rather than a conciseness one—it efficiently states its limited purpose.

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 (three required parameters), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what balance sheet data includes, how parameters work, or what the tool returns, making it inadequate for effective 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description adds no information about what period_length, periods_to_compare, or start_month mean, their expected formats, or how they affect the balance sheet data, failing to compensate for the schema gap.

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 'get balance sheet data' restates the tool name with minimal elaboration, making it a tautology. It specifies the resource (balance sheet data) but lacks a clear verb beyond 'get' and doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling financial data tools like get_profit_loss or get_operational_cashflow.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description offers no context about prerequisites, appropriate scenarios, or comparisons to sibling tools like get_profit_loss or get_company_valuation, leaving usage entirely ambiguous.

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