Copilot Money MCP

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

The annotation provides readOnlyHint=true, and the description doesn't contradict this. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by explaining the purpose of the returned data ('for accurate historical price and share calculations') and mentioning filtering capabilities. However, it doesn't disclose rate limits, authentication requirements, or data freshness details that would be helpful.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the core purpose and return value, the second explains filtering options. Every word serves a purpose with zero redundancy, making it easy to parse while conveying 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 moderate complexity (5 parameters, no output schema), the description provides good context about what data is returned and filtering options. However, without an output schema, additional details about response format, pagination behavior (implied by limit/offset parameters but not explained), or error cases would enhance completeness for this data retrieval tool.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description mentions filtering by 'ticker symbol or date range,' which aligns with parameters in the schema but doesn't add significant semantic value beyond what's already documented in the parameter descriptions. No additional context about parameter interactions or special cases is provided.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('stock split history'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on split data rather than accounts, balances, prices, or other investment metrics. It explicitly mentions what data is returned (split ratios, dates, multipliers) and why it's useful (for historical calculations).

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 context by mentioning filtering capabilities (by ticker symbol or date range), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_investment_prices or get_securities. No guidance is provided about prerequisites, limitations, or when-not-to-use scenarios.

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