Copilot Money MCP

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful context about what data is returned (e.g., 'current_amount, target_amount, daily data points, and contribution records per month'), which goes beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination details (implied by limit/offset but not explained), 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with two sentences that efficiently convey purpose and usage without waste. Every sentence earns its place by delivering essential information, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 (read-only with filtering and pagination), annotations cover safety, and schema covers parameters well. The description adds context on returned data, compensating for the lack of output schema. However, it could be more complete by mentioning pagination behavior or data format details, leaving minor gaps.

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 all parameters well-documented in the schema (e.g., 'goal_id' for filtering, 'limit' with default and max). The description adds marginal value by summarizing filtering options ('Filter by goal_id or month range'), but does not provide additional semantics beyond what the schema already specifies, meeting the baseline for high 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 specific action ('Get monthly progress snapshots') and resource ('for financial goals'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_goals' (which likely returns goal definitions rather than progress history) and 'get_balance_history' (which might be for accounts rather than goals). The verb 'Get' combined with the detailed scope makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 by specifying filtering options ('Filter by goal_id or month range'), which helps the agent understand when to apply these parameters. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or name alternative tools (e.g., 'get_goals' for goal metadata), missing full differentiation guidance.

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