Lunch Money MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires authentication, returns paginated results, includes metadata, or has rate limits. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information without redundancy or 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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but doesn't provide enough context about the return format, authentication needs, or relationship to other tools. For a basic read operation, it's functional but could be more helpful with additional behavioral details.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it correctly implies no filtering parameters by saying 'all transaction tags'. This meets the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('all transaction tags'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'createTag' and 'deleteTag' by specifying a read operation. However, it doesn't explicitly mention that this returns all tags without filtering, which would make it a perfect 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. It doesn't mention when you'd want to list tags (e.g., for selection in other operations) or differentiate from other 'get' tools like 'getTransactions' that might include tags. There's no context about prerequisites or limitations.

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