Copilot Money MCP

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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, which the description doesn't contradict. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by explaining the six operational modes, mentioning that it returns 'human-readable category names and normalized merchant names,' and implying it's a unified retrieval tool. It doesn't cover rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination behavior beyond the limit/offset parameters.

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 as a single paragraph that front-loads the unified purpose, then enumerates six modes with brief examples, and concludes with return value characteristics. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it appropriately sized for a complex tool with many parameters.

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 (24 parameters, no output schema), the description provides good contextual completeness by explaining the six operational modes and return value characteristics. However, it doesn't address potential interactions between modes (e.g., what happens when transaction_id is combined with other filters) or error conditions, leaving some gaps for a tool of this complexity.

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 input schema already documents all 24 parameters thoroughly. The description adds some semantic grouping by organizing parameters into six modes, but doesn't provide additional syntax, format, or constraint details beyond what's in the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the 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 tool's purpose as 'Unified transaction retrieval tool' and specifies six distinct modes of operation (filter-based, single lookup, text search, special types, location-based, tag filter). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_accounts or get_budgets by focusing exclusively on transaction data retrieval.

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 usage context by outlining six different modes of operation, which implicitly guides when to use specific parameter combinations. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives (like get_recurring_transactions) or mention any prerequisites or exclusions beyond the parameter descriptions.

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