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 it updates properties without disclosing behavioral traits like permission requirements, whether updates are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to unspecified fields. 'Update' implies mutation, but details are missing, making it inadequate for a tool with 13 parameters.

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 that front-loads the core action without waste. It's appropriately sized for a basic tool definition, though its brevity contributes 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 high complexity (13 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain parameter semantics, behavioral context, or return values, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively beyond its basic purpose.

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 schema provides no parameter details. The description adds no meaning beyond the tool name, failing to explain what parameters like 'id', 'amount', or 'status' do or their formats. For 13 undocumented parameters, this is a critical gap with no compensation.

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 'Update an existing transaction's properties' clearly states the action (update) and target (transaction), but it's vague about what properties can be updated and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'updateBudget' or 'updateCategory' which follow the same pattern. It's better than a tautology but lacks specificity.

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 like 'bulkUpdateTransactions' for multiple updates or 'createTransaction' for new entries. The description implies it's for existing transactions but doesn't specify prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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