Copilot Money MCP

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond this: it discloses that hidden accounts are excluded by default, explains how filtering works across multiple fields (account_type and subtype), and clarifies that summary totals reflect only filtered subsets. This enhances understanding of the tool's behavior without contradicting annotations.

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 efficiently structured and front-loaded: the first sentence covers the core purpose and outputs, followed by optional filtering details and default behavior. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy for an agent to quickly grasp key information.

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 moderate complexity, rich annotations (readOnlyHint), and full schema coverage, the description is largely complete. It explains filtering logic, default exclusions, and output fields. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from more detail on return structure (e.g., format of accounts list), though the summary fields are clearly stated.

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 100%, with both parameters well-documented in the input schema. The description adds some semantic context: it mentions filtering by account type with examples (checking, savings, credit, investment) and notes that hidden accounts are excluded by default. However, this mostly reiterates schema details without significant new insights, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get all accounts with balances, plus summary fields... Optionally filter by account type...' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('accounts'), and key outputs (balances, summary fields), distinguishing it from siblings like get_transactions or get_holdings that focus on different data.

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 clear context for usage: 'Optionally filter by account type... By default, hidden accounts are excluded.' It explains when to use filtering and default behavior, but does not explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name alternative tools for similar purposes, such as get_balance_history for time-series data.

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