Lunch Money 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. It indicates this is a creation operation, implying mutation, but lacks details on permissions required, whether the budget is editable/deletable, error handling, or response format. For a mutation tool with zero 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 with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose ('Create a new budget') and includes essential details without redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity of a creation tool with 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter meanings, behavioral traits, and expected outcomes, making it insufficient for an agent to use the tool effectively without additional context.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'amount and date range', which partially covers 3 of the 5 parameters (amount, start_date, end_date), but omits 'category_id' and 'currency'. This leaves key parameters undocumented, failing to fully address the coverage gap.

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 ('Create a new budget') and specifies the resource ('for a category') along with key attributes ('with amount and date range'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'updateBudget' or 'deleteBudget' by focusing on creation, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other creation tools like 'createCategory' or 'createTransaction'.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing category), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'updateBudget' for modifications or 'getBudgets' for retrieval. The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate.

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