Pocketsmith MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions listing for a date range but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens if no events exist in the range. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 ('List events for a date range') with a clarifying parenthetical. There's no wasted text, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 tool's low complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on usage context, behavioral aspects, and output expectations, which are needed for a complete understanding despite the simple schema.

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%, with both parameters (start_date, end_date) clearly documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond implying date-range filtering, matching the schema's details without providing additional context like format examples or edge cases.

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 ('List') and resource ('events (recurring transactions)'), specifying it's for a date range. It distinguishes events from transactions (implied by 'recurring transactions'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like pocketsmith_list_transactions, which might list non-recurring transactions.

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 siblings like pocketsmith_list_transactions and pocketsmith_search_transactions, the description doesn't clarify if this is for recurring events only or how it differs from other listing tools, leaving usage context ambiguous.

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