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. It states 'Delete' but doesn't clarify if this is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., cascading deletions), or provides confirmation. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a critical 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, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by directly contributing to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 destructive nature, lack of annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter documentation, the description is inadequate. It doesn't address critical aspects like return values, error conditions, or behavioral nuances, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool safely and 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?

The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'by ID', which adds meaning beyond the schema's generic 'id' property by implying it refers to a recurring item identifier. However, it doesn't explain the ID's format, source (e.g., from getRecurringItems), or constraints, leaving significant gaps.

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 ('Delete') and resource ('recurring item by ID'), which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'deleteAsset' or 'deleteTransaction' by specifying the resource type. However, it doesn't explicitly mention what a 'recurring item' is or how it differs from other deletable resources, which prevents a perfect score.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing recurring item ID), exclusions (e.g., not for non-recurring items), or comparisons with siblings like 'deleteTransaction' or 'updateRecurringItem'. The agent must infer usage from the name and context alone.

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