Pocketsmith MCP Server

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 minimal information. It doesn't describe what 'trend analysis' entails (e.g., what metrics are calculated, format of results, whether it's read-only or has side effects). The description doesn't address authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens with the analysis results. For a tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 extremely concise at just 7 words with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and uses efficient phrasing. Every word earns its place by specifying the action, resource, and scope without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

For a tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'trend analysis' returns, how to interpret results, or the relationship between parameters like period/interval and date ranges. The agent would need to guess about the output format and analytical methodology, which is problematic for a data analysis tool.

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 mentions 'categories and scenarios' which aligns with two of the six parameters, but doesn't explain how these parameters interact or what 'trend analysis across' them means. With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all parameters well, so the description adds minimal value beyond what's in the structured data. The baseline of 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 tool's purpose as 'Get trend analysis across categories and scenarios' which specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('trend analysis') with scope ('across categories and scenarios'). It distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on individual transactions, accounts, or categories rather than aggregated trend analysis. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential similar analytical tools like 'get_budget_summary'.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or comparison to sibling tools like 'get_budget_summary' or transaction listing tools. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and description without any explicit direction.

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