Pocketsmith MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions creating a rule for 'future transactions' and hints at behavior with 'apply_to_uncategorised' and 'apply_to_all' parameters, but does not disclose critical traits like required permissions, rate limits, whether the rule is editable/deletable, or how conflicts with existing rules are handled. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Create a rule to automatically categorize future transactions') and adds essential context ('matching a payee pattern'). There is zero waste, and every word earns its place.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a mutation tool. It adequately explains the purpose but lacks behavioral details (e.g., permissions, side effects) and return values. The high schema coverage helps, but overall completeness is minimal viable with clear gaps.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all four parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide examples). Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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 specific action ('Create a rule to automatically categorize') and the resource ('future transactions matching a payee pattern'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'pocketsmith_categorize_transaction' (manual categorization) and 'pocketsmith_list_category_rules' (listing rules). It precisely defines the tool's function without tautology.

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 implies usage for automating categorization based on payee patterns, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'pocketsmith_categorize_transaction' for manual categorization or 'pocketsmith_list_category_rules' for viewing existing rules. It provides context but lacks explicit guidance on exclusions or comparisons.

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