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 (daily/high-frequency, OHLCV when available) and the types of investments covered, but doesn't disclose rate limits, authentication needs, or data freshness.

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?

Three sentences with zero waste - first states purpose, second details return data and filters, third adds OHLCV information. Every sentence adds value and the description is appropriately front-loaded with core functionality.

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?

For a read-only tool with excellent schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides good context about what data is returned and for what asset types. It could be more complete by mentioning data sources, update frequency, or limitations, but covers the essential use case well.

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 already fully documents all 6 parameters. The description mentions filtering by ticker, date range, and price type, but adds no additional semantic context beyond what's in the parameter descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'investment price history' with specific scope for portfolio tracking. It distinguishes from siblings like get_investment_performance or get_holdings by focusing exclusively on price data rather than returns or positions.

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 portfolio tracking and filtering by various criteria, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like get_investment_performance for returns or get_securities for metadata. No explicit exclusions or comparisons are provided.

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