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 the tool 'gets' data (implying read-only), but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what the output looks like (e.g., summary format, whether it includes totals or breakdowns). For a tool with no annotation coverage, 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 gets straight to the point without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple data retrieval tool, though it could be slightly more informative without sacrificing conciseness.

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 tool with 4 parameters. It doesn't explain what the budget summary includes (e.g., income vs. expenses, category breakdowns), how results are structured, or any behavioral aspects like pagination or defaults. For a data retrieval tool in a financial context, more context is needed to use it effectively.

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 already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description mentions 'period and date range', which aligns with the parameters but doesn't add meaningful semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain how 'period' and 'interval' interact or provide examples). Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 action ('Get budget summary') and specifies the scope ('for a period and date range'), which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'pocketsmith_list_budget' or 'pocketsmith_get_trend_analysis', leaving some ambiguity about when to use this specific budget summary tool versus other budget-related 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. With multiple sibling tools related to budgets (e.g., 'pocketsmith_list_budget', 'pocketsmith_get_trend_analysis'), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. 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.