Excel Finance MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'calculate' implies a read-only computation, the description doesn't specify whether this requires specific inputs (like time periods in years vs. months), what assumptions are made (e.g., compounding frequency), or what format the output takes. For a financial calculation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 extremely concise at just five words with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Calculate present value') and efficiently states what the tool does without unnecessary elaboration. For a straightforward calculation tool, this level of conciseness is appropriate.

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 financial calculation tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the financial formula being used, the units/assumptions for parameters, what the output represents, or how this differs from similar sibling tools. The description leaves too many contextual gaps for effective tool selection and invocation.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so all three parameters (futureValue, rate, periods) are completely undocumented in the schema. The description mentions 'future amount' which vaguely corresponds to 'futureValue', but provides no information about 'rate' (interest rate? discount rate? annual vs. periodic?) or 'periods' (time units? compounding intervals?). The description adds minimal value beyond the parameter names themselves.

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 'Calculate present value of future amount' clearly states the verb ('calculate') and resource ('present value'), making the purpose understandable. However, it's somewhat vague about the specific financial context and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'calculate_npv' or 'future_value', which are closely related financial 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools performing financial calculations (e.g., 'calculate_npv', 'future_value', 'calculate_irr'), there's no indication of when this specific present value calculation is appropriate or what distinguishes it from other time-value-of-money tools.

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