Lunch Money 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. While 'Create a new tag' implies a write operation, it lacks details on permissions, whether the tag name must be unique, error handling, or what the response contains. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 is appropriately sized and front-loaded, clearly stating the tool's purpose 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?

Given the tool's complexity as a creation operation with no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter documentation, the description is inadequate. It should explain more about the tag's role, potential conflicts, or return values to help the agent use it correctly.

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 does not mention the 'name' parameter at all, and with 0% schema description coverage, the parameter is undocumented in both the schema and description. However, since there is only one parameter, the baseline is 4, but the description fails to add any semantic value, such as explaining what the tag name represents or any constraints, resulting in a lower score.

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 tag') and the resource ('for categorizing transactions'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'updateTag' or 'deleteTag', which would require a 5.

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, such as 'updateTag' for modifying existing tags or 'getTags' for listing them. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual usage, leaving the agent to infer based on tool names alone.

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