Marlo MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers no information on traits such as read-only vs. destructive operations, authentication needs, rate limits, or response format. It fails to describe what 'get' entails operationally, making it inadequate for a tool with 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 concise with a single sentence, but this brevity results in under-specification rather than efficient communication. It's front-loaded but lacks necessary detail, making it insufficiently informative despite its compact structure.

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 (3 required parameters), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't compensate for missing structured data, failing to explain behavior, parameters, or return values, making it inadequate for effective tool 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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning parameters 'period_length', 'periods_to_compare', and 'start_month' are undocumented in the schema. The description adds no semantic information about these parameters, such as their purpose, expected formats (e.g., date strings, numeric values), or how they interact, leaving them completely unexplained.

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 operational cashflow data' restates the tool name with minimal elaboration, making it a tautology. It specifies the resource ('operational cashflow data') but lacks a clear verb beyond 'get' and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_cashbalance_streams' or 'get_profit_loss', which might retrieve related financial data.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no information to choose between this and other financial data tools like 'get_balance_sheet' or 'get_profit_loss'.

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