Copilot Money MCP

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by explaining what data is returned (e.g., current-month effective amounts, resolved totals for parent categories, amounts map for history), which helps the agent understand the tool's output behavior. However, it does not mention rate limits, auth needs, or error handling, leaving some gaps.

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 concise and well-structured, with three sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose, return data, and key details like resolved totals and current-month focus. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to parse and front-loaded with essential 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 complexity (budget tracking with categories and overrides), annotations cover safety (read-only), and schema covers parameters, the description provides good contextual completeness by detailing return data types and behaviors. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from more explicit format details, but it adequately compensates with clear explanations of what is returned.

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 the parameter 'active_only' fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining implications of setting active_only=true. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 with specific verbs ('Get budgets') and resources ('from Copilot's native budget tracking'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_accounts or get_transactions. It specifies what data is returned (current-month effective budget per category, full amounts map, parent category resolved totals), making the scope explicit and differentiated.

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 implies usage by mentioning 'Returns the current-month effective budget per category' and 'for history lookups', suggesting it's for retrieving budget data, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_categories or get_alance_history. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions is provided, leaving usage context somewhat vague.

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