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: it discloses data sources ('Joins data from account holdings, securities, and optionally historical snapshots'), limitations ('cost_basis may be unavailable for cash-equivalent positions'), and output details (specific fields returned). No contradiction with annotations exists.

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, followed by return details, data sources, filtering options, and a limitation note. Every sentence adds value (e.g., output fields, joins, filtering, caveats) with zero waste, making it efficiently structured and appropriately sized.

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 (investment holdings with joins and filters), annotations cover safety (read-only), and schema covers inputs well. The description adds output details and behavioral context, compensating for the lack of output schema. However, it could mention pagination behavior (implied by limit/offset) more explicitly for full completeness.

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%, so the schema fully documents all 5 parameters. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, only mentioning filtering by account or ticker symbol, which is already covered in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline of 3 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 specific action ('Get current investment holdings with position-level detail') and resource ('investment holdings'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_accounts (accounts overview) or get_securities (securities master data). It explicitly lists the returned fields, making the purpose highly specific 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 provides clear context for usage ('Filter by account or ticker symbol') and implies when to use it (for detailed holdings data). However, it does not explicitly state when to use alternatives like get_investment_performance (for returns) or get_securities (for security metadata), missing explicit sibling differentiation.

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