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 of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'Get' operation, implying it's read-only, but doesn't confirm if it's safe, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the return format looks like (e.g., JSON structure). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Get details'), making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence earns its place by conveying essential information.

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?

The tool is relatively simple (one required parameter, no output schema), and the description covers the basic purpose adequately. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., safety, response format) and doesn't guide usage relative to siblings. This makes it minimally viable but incomplete for optimal agent decision-making.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'account_id' parameter clearly documented as 'The account ID' of type integer. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond this, such as where to find the ID or valid ranges. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 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 verb ('Get') and resource ('details of a specific account by ID'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'pocketsmith_list_accounts' or 'pocketsmith_get_transaction', which could cause confusion about when to use this versus other retrieval tools.

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. For example, it doesn't specify if this is for retrieving a single account's details after listing accounts or how it differs from 'pocketsmith_list_accounts'. Without such context, the agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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