Marlo MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('get') without detailing traits such as read-only status, authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or output format. This leaves critical behavioral aspects unspecified for a tool that likely involves financial data retrieval.

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 overly concise to the point of under-specification—a single phrase with no structure or elaboration. While brief, it doesn't earn its place by adding value; it's more a placeholder than a helpful guide, lacking front-loaded information or explanatory sentences.

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 implied by financial data ('profit and loss'), no annotations, no output schema, and poor schema coverage, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't address what the tool returns, how to interpret results, or any contextual nuances, 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 description provides no information about parameters, while the input schema has 0% description coverage (parameter 'data' is undocumented in schema descriptions). With one required parameter and no guidance in the description, the AI agent lacks essential semantics for correct invocation, 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 voyage profit and loss' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. It specifies the resource ('voyage profit and loss') but lacks a clear, distinct verb beyond 'get' and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_profit_loss' or 'get_voyage_details', leaving ambiguity about scope and specificity.

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. With sibling tools like 'get_profit_loss' and 'get_voyage_details' present, the description fails to indicate context, prerequisites, or distinctions, offering no help for an AI agent in selecting the appropriate tool among similar options.

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