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 context beyond this by specifying the data source ('Copilot's native goal tracking'), the types of goals retrieved, the details returned (e.g., target amounts, status), and that it calculates total target amounts. However, it does not disclose potential limitations like rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination behavior, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently lists retrieved goal types and returned details in a single, well-structured sentence. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it concise and easy to parse for an AI agent.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema), annotations cover safety (readOnlyHint), and the description provides rich details on data types and calculations, it is mostly complete. However, without an output schema, the description could benefit from clarifying the return format (e.g., list structure), though it does list key fields, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 single parameter 'active_only' fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the implications of filtering by active goals. Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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 specific action ('Get financial goals') and resource ('from Copilot's native goal tracking'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_accounts or get_transactions by focusing exclusively on goal data. It explicitly lists the types of goals retrieved (savings, debt payoff, investment) and the details returned, making the purpose unambiguous and distinct.

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 for retrieving goal data but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_goal_history or other financial data tools. It provides context by mentioning the source ('Copilot's native goal tracking') but lacks guidance on prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios where this tool is preferred over siblings.

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