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. 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, but it doesn't specify if this requires authentication, has side effects (e.g., cascading deletions), rate limits, or error conditions. The description is minimal and lacks critical behavioral context for a destructive operation.

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—a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. Every word earns its place, making it efficient for quick comprehension, though this brevity may contribute to gaps in other dimensions.

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 (a destructive delete operation), lack of annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like permissions, side effects, or return values, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an AI agent in this 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?

The schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by specifying that the parameter is an 'ID' for a tag, which clarifies the 'id' field's purpose beyond the schema's numeric constraint. However, it doesn't explain the ID's format, source, or validation rules, leaving gaps in understanding.

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 target resource ('a tag'), with specificity about the identifier ('by ID'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'deleteAsset' or 'deleteBudget' by specifying the resource type. However, it doesn't explicitly mention what 'tag' refers to in this system's context, leaving some ambiguity.

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., tag must exist), consequences (e.g., what happens to associated data), or when not to use it. The presence of sibling tools like 'deleteTransaction' suggests a family of delete operations, but no differentiation is offered.

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