Copilot Money MCP

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds useful context by specifying the return data structure (ticker symbol, name, type, etc.) and update metadata, which goes beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling, keeping the score at a baseline level with some added value.

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 in the first sentence, followed by return details and filtering options in a second sentence. Every sentence earns its place by adding essential information without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 (4 parameters, no output schema), the description is complete enough by explaining what data is returned and filtering options. However, it lacks details on output format specifics like pagination behavior or error cases, which could be useful for an agent, slightly reducing 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%, with all parameters well-documented in the input schema. The description adds minimal value by mentioning filtering by ticker symbol or security type, but it does not provide additional semantics beyond what the schema already covers. This meets the baseline 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 security master data') and resources ('stocks, ETFs, mutual funds, and cash equivalents'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_holdings or get_investment_prices by focusing on master data rather than portfolio-specific or performance data. It provides a comprehensive scope of what securities are included.

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 security master data with filtering options, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_investment_prices for price history or get_holdings for portfolio holdings. No exclusions or specific contexts are provided, leaving usage guidance at an implied level.

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