Marlo MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure but offers none. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, whether it requires authentication, what format the data returns in, whether there are rate limits, or any error conditions. The description provides only the basic action without any operational context.

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 at just four words, which could be appropriate for a simple tool. However, this brevity comes at the cost of being under-specified rather than efficiently informative. While it's front-loaded with the core action, it lacks the additional context that would make it genuinely helpful.

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 complexity of financial data tools and the absence of both annotations and an output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'cashbalance streams' are, what data fields are returned, or how this differs from other financial reporting tools in the sibling list. For a tool in a domain with many similar alternatives, more contextual information is needed.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). The description doesn't need to explain any parameters, which is appropriate. Since there are no parameters to document, a baseline of 4 is warranted as the description doesn't create confusion about expected inputs.

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 cashbalance streams data' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal elaboration. While it indicates a retrieval action ('Get') and a resource type ('cashbalance streams data'), it lacks specificity about what 'cashbalance streams' actually are or what data fields are included. It doesn't distinguish this tool from its many sibling 'get_' tools beyond the resource name.

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. With 70+ sibling tools including various financial data retrieval tools (like get_balance_sheet, get_operational_cashflow, get_profit_loss), there's no indication of what makes 'cashbalance streams' distinct or when this specific data type is needed. No prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison to similar tools are mentioned.

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