PocketSmith MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation3/5
Tools are grouped by resource, but there are many similar list endpoints (e.g., list_accounts, list_institution_accounts, list_transaction_accounts, list_transaction_account_transactions) that could be confused, especially without reading descriptions carefully. The distinction between 'account' and 'transaction account' is not immediately obvious from names alone.
Naming Consistency4/5
Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (list_*, get_*, create_*, update_*, delete_*). Minor deviations exist (get_me, reorder_accounts, assign_attachment, unassign_attachment, delete_forecast_cache) but these are understandable and do not break the overall pattern.
Tool Count1/5
With 56 tools, this far exceeds the 'typical' range of 3-15 and falls into the extreme mismatch category. Even for a comprehensive API, the sheer number creates a heavy, unwieldy surface that is likely to overwhelm agents and users.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers CRUD for most major resources (accounts, transactions, categories, institutions, events, attachments) and includes read-only access for budgets, trends, currencies, and time zones. However, there is no delete or update for category rules, no delete for saved searches, and no create/delete for labels, which are minor but notable gaps.
Average 3.4/5 across 56 of 56 tools scored. Lowest: 2.1/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
This repository is archived. Archived repositories automatically receive an F maintenance tier.
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'create', which implies mutation, but does not mention required permissions, side effects, idempotency, or any other operational details. The lack of any additional context leaves the agent guessing about the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than concise efficiency. It merely rephrases the tool name in a sentence, adding no informative content. A single sentence that restates the name does not earn its place, as it provides zero value beyond the tool name itself.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 required params, no output schema), the description should at least clarify what an institution is or the purpose of creation. The current description is completely inadequate: it does not explain the domain, the effect of the operation, or how it relates to sibling institution tools. This leaves the agent with no useful context for invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already documents both parameters ('title' and 'currency_code') with descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no further meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a new institution' is essentially a direct restatement of the tool name 'create_institution'. It provides no additional detail, such as what an institution is or what creating one entails, and does not distinguish it from sibling tools beyond the verb already present in the name. This is a tautology rather than a meaningful explanation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or why one would create an institution rather than update or list one. The description is purely imperative and offers no context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It simply states 'Update a PocketSmith event' without explaining side effects, the meaning of the 'behaviour' parameter (one/forward/all), or any potential impacts on the event series. This is essentially a tautology that reveals no behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified to the point of being nearly useless. It does not earn its place by adding value beyond the tool name, and it lacks essential information about the operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has complex semantics (event series updates with 'one', 'forward', 'all' scopes) and no output schema or annotations. The description provides none of the necessary context about these behaviors, making it inadequate for an agent to safely and correctly invoke the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers 100% of the parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, but it doesn't need to since the schema is comprehensive.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the action ('Update') and the resource ('a PocketSmith event'), which is specific enough to distinguish it from unrelated tools. However, it lacks any details about what can be updated or any contextual scope, so it doesn't fully differentiate from sibling create/delete event tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_event or delete_event. The description does not mention any prerequisites, series behavior, or context in which updating an event is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It merely states 'Delete a PocketSmith account' without mentioning that deletion is irreversible, may cascade to related transactions, or requires specific permissions. This lack of transparency is significant for a delete operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no filler, making it highly concise. However, it is so minimal that it sacrifices valuable behavioral context, though that is evaluated elsewhere. For structure and efficiency, it earns a high but not perfect score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (one required parameter, no output schema), the description could be sufficient if it disclosed destructive implications. However, it fails to mention irreversibility or cascading effects, making it incomplete for an operation that permanently deletes data.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already fully documents the 'id' parameter with the description 'The account ID to delete,' providing 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Delete' and identifies the resource as 'a PocketSmith account,' which distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_account and create_account. However, 'PocketSmith account' is slightly ambiguous—it could be confused with a user account, though sibling naming suggests a financial account. This makes the purpose clear but not perfectly specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 such as update_account or delete_institution. There is no mention of prerequisites, side effects, or criteria for selection. This is a gap for a destructive operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the deletion action without noting consequences (e.g., permanence, cascading effects) or scope implications. This is a significant gap for a destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words, making it highly scannable and efficient. It front-loads the verb and resource without any filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of annotations and an output schema, the description is too sparse to fully inform the agent about the deletion's scope, side effects, or error conditions. It covers the basic action but omits contextual details that would help the agent invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (id and behaviour) with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no additional parameter information, leaving the schema to fully carry the meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Delete' and the resource 'a PocketSmith event', making the tool's function unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools by naming the specific resource type, though it does not elaborate on the event's context within PocketSmith.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like update_event or other delete tools. It also does not explain the semantics of the 'behaviour' parameter or any prerequisites for deletion, leaving usage decisions entirely to the schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely restates the tool's name and provides no additional context about permanence, cascading effects, permissions, or reversibility. For a destructive operation, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately short for such a simple tool, though it lacks useful detail that could be included without bloating the text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a delete operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description should disclose more about the action's impact (e.g., irreversibility, related data affected, confirmation requirements). The current description is too minimal to fully equip an agent to use the tool safely and correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema fully describes the single parameter `id` with the description 'The transaction ID', achieving 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds no extra semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete a PocketSmith transaction' clearly states the verb (delete) and resource (transaction), making the tool's function obvious. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like update_transaction or create_transaction beyond the action itself, nor does it specify any scope or conditions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, when not to use it, or any prerequisites or side effects. The description is purely declarative and offers no usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it creates an event, but omits any information about side effects, permissions, idempotency, or return values. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words, which is concise. However, it is under-specified for a tool with 7 parameters, lacking necessary details that would make it more useful. It is not overly verbose, but it is also not fully informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too sparse. It does not explain the context of event creation, return behavior, or any constraints or prerequisites. The completeness is inadequate for the complexity of the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, and it does not reference any parameters or their purpose in context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create') and the resource ('new event') with context ('in a scenario'), making its purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like update_event, delete_event, and get_event by specifying the creation operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or situations where a different event-related tool would be more appropriate. The description only restates the tool's function without providing usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool lists transactions and does not describe pagination behavior, return format, or any implicit constraints beyond what the schema already provides.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence and is concise. However, it is under-specified for a tool with 10 parameters and several closely related siblings, making it minimally acceptable rather than well-structured and informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 10 parameters and no output schema or annotations, but the description does not explain return values, filter usage scenarios, or how it relates to sibling tools. This leaves the agent under-informed about when to choose this tool over similar ones.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage, with all parameters described inline. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, which is acceptable when the schema is comprehensive. It does not compensate for any gaps, but none exist.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: listing transactions for a specific transaction account. However, it does not differentiate itself from the similarly named sibling tool 'list_account_transactions', which may perform a similar or identical operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 such as 'list_transactions' or 'list_account_transactions'. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states the action ('update') without disclosing side effects, permission requirements, idempotency, or response behavior. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (one sentence), but it is under-specified and does not add value beyond the tool name. It is not structured or informative enough to be considered efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should provide more context about behavior, return values, or use cases. It is incomplete for a mutation tool, leaving the agent without essential guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so all parameters are already described in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific context, but the baseline for high coverage is 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool updates a PocketSmith account, which is a specific verb+resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like update_transaction_account or update_institution, which could cause ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool instead of alternatives. The description simply says 'Update a PocketSmith account' without noting prerequisites, exclusions, or contrasting with other update tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It only says 'Create a new account' and does not mention side effects, permission requirements, idempotency, or what happens on creation. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, consisting of a single sentence with no fluff. It is front-loaded and easy to read. However, it is so brief that it borders on under-specification, lacking any details that would help an agent understand the tool's behavior beyond the name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has four required parameters and no output schema, and no annotations are provided. The description does not explain the creation process, what the account represents, or the relationship to institutions. It is too incomplete for an agent to use confidently without inspecting the schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for all four parameters (type, title, currency_code, institution_id), so the description does not need to add much. The baseline is 3, and the description adds no extra parameter context beyond what the schema already states.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a new account' clearly states the action (create) and the resource (account). It is distinct from other account tools like list_accounts or update_account, though it does not elaborate on the account type or relation to institution, which is left to the schema.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, the need for an institution ID, or when creating an account is appropriate. It simply states the action without context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action (delete) without mentioning whether the deletion is permanent, whether it cascades to related transactions, or any permission requirements. This is a significant gap for a destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no unnecessary information. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it quickly scannable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a delete tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no behavioral details, the one-line description is insufficient. It doesn't address the consequences of deletion, such as whether the file is removed from storage or what happens to transaction associations, making it incomplete for an agent to safely invoke.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage with a clear description for the single parameter 'id' (The attachment ID). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete a PocketSmith attachment' clearly states the action (delete) and resource (attachment), which is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like get_attachment or list_attachments. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from unassign_attachment, which could be confused with deletion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 such as unassign_attachment or update_attachment. There are no prerequisites, exclusion conditions, or context clues about the appropriate usage scenario.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List transactions' without mentioning pagination, filtering options, read-only guarantees, response format, or any side effects. The verb 'List' implies a read operation, but this is not explicitly stated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It is appropriately concise for a simple listing operation, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this tool is more complex than the description acknowledges. The description omits important context such as return shape, pagination behavior, and how this tool fits among siblings, making it insufficient for reliable invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers all 10 parameters with descriptions, so the description does not need to add parameter details. It does reinforce the 'specific account' context for account_id, but otherwise adds no meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description specifies the action 'List' and the resource 'transactions for a specific account', which clearly distinguishes it from a generic all-transactions query. However, it does not differentiate from closely related siblings like list_transaction_account_transactions, so it is clear but not fully distinctive.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_transactions or list_category_transactions. No exclusions, preconditions, or alternative recommendations are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description is the sole source of behavioral information. It implies a read operation via 'List' but provides no details on pagination behavior, return format, or the effect of the unassigned parameter. Minimal disclosure beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, clear sentence with no redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a simple list operation and is easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool lacks an output schema and annotations, so the description must carry more weight. It does not explain what is returned, how pagination works, or how this differs from list_transaction_attachments. The description is too sparse to be contextually complete for an agent deciding between similar tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema fully documents all three parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter meaning; even the 'authenticated user' context is not tied to specific parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('attachments'), and scopes to the authenticated user. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling list_transaction_attachments, which likely lists attachments in a different context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_transaction_attachments. It does not mention use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. The only behavioral trait mentioned is that it returns transactions for the authenticated user, but it omits information about pagination behavior, ordering, or response format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose. It avoids unnecessary detail and every word adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the one-sentence description is insufficient. It fails to communicate what the returned data looks like, how pagination works, or any constraints on combining filters. The description is minimally viable but leaves significant gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameter semantics are already well documented. The description adds no further meaning beyond the generic phrase 'with optional filters'. Thus, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (list), the resource (transactions), and the scope (for the authenticated user). However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like list_account_transactions or list_category_transactions, which also list transactions but with different scopes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It does not mention that account-specific or category-specific transaction listing tools exist, nor does it indicate any prerequisites or selection criteria. The phrase 'optional filters' implies flexibility but offers no explicit context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations to cover safety or side effects, the description carries the full burden but only states the action. It does not disclose whether the provided order fully replaces the existing order, how invalid IDs are handled, or whether the change is persistent or reversible.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that avoids unnecessary words. It is concise but minimally informative; it could include more useful context without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and full schema coverage, the description is mostly adequate, clearly stating the core function. However, the lack of annotations or any behavioral caveats leaves questions about mutation semantics unanswered, making it incomplete for an autonomous agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already covers the parameter at 100%, describing 'account_ids' as an 'Ordered array of account IDs'. The description adds the context of 'display order', which slightly clarifies the purpose but does not provide additional syntax or format details beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Update' and identifies the resource as 'display order of accounts', making the tool's purpose clear. It distinguishes itself from account CRUD tools by focusing on ordering rather than account data, though it could be more explicit about the reordering semantics.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as whether it is the sole mechanism for reordering accounts or if any prerequisites exist. It simply states the function without contextualizing its place among account-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'update' without noting partial-update semantics, required id behavior, or return values, leaving significant ambiguity for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The one-sentence description is highly compact and contains no filler. It is slightly underspecified for a tool with eight parameters, but it is still clear and direct, earning a 4 rather than a 5.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The schema thoroughly documents all parameters, but the description lacks usage guidelines, behavioral notes, and return information. With no annotations and no output schema, the overall context is minimal but sufficient for basic selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a descriptive label such as 'New title' and 'CSS hex colour'. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Update a PocketSmith category' with a specific verb and resource, making its function clear. It does not elaborate on scope or explicitly differentiate from sibling tools beyond the verb, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_category or delete_category. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool 'updates' an institution, which implies a write operation, but does not explain the effect of omitting optional fields (title, currency_code), whether updates are partial or full replacements, or any permission or idempotency considerations. This falls short of the transparency expected for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, which is maximally concise with zero wasted words. It front-loads the purpose immediately and is easy to parse. While it lacks depth, conciseness is about efficiency, not completeness, and this description uses exactly the words needed to state the core action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's relatively simple parameter set but the absence of annotations and output schema, the description should provide more behavioral and usage context. It does not specify when to use this over create/delete, what the update semantics are (e.g., partial vs. full), or what the return value looks like. The description leaves the agent with only the schema and tool name, which is insufficient for confident invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter (id, title, currency_code) having a text description. The tool description itself adds no additional meaning about parameter usage or constraints, but this is acceptable because the schema already provides the necessary semantics. The baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Update') and the resource ('a PocketSmith institution'), making the primary purpose evident. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like create_institution, get_institution, and delete_institution, though it does not enumerate the specific fields that can be updated. This is slightly less informative than an example like 'Update shared drive settings including name, color, and restrictions,' but still unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention scenarios such as modifying an institution's title or currency code, nor does it exclude cases where a different tool (e.g., create_institution) might be more appropriate. Sibling tools are listed externally, but the description itself offers no comparative or contextual usage cues.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It merely restates the tool's name without disclosing whether updates are partial, what permissions are required, or any side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no filler, directly front-loading the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It omits critical behavioral context like partial update behavior, auth requirements, and response handling.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers all 8 parameters with individual descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Update') and the target resource ('PocketSmith user profile'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_user and update_transaction_account by specifying the user profile domain.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_me or get_user. It does not mention prerequisites, preferred use cases, or any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only states 'Create a new category'. It does not disclose side effects, idempotency, permissions, return behavior, or failure modes. This falls short for a write operation without annotation support.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, given the tool's complexity (7 parameters), it may be too terse to convey necessary context, though that is captured by other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this minimal description is inadequate. It does not explain return values, constraints (e.g., parent_id requirements), or any behavioral nuances, leaving significant gaps for successful invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all 7 parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already contains.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a new category' clearly states the verb and resource, distinguishing it from category get/update/delete/list siblings. It is specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any preconditions such as parent category existence or permission requirements. The description simply states the action without usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely says 'List transactions' without revealing pagination behavior, return format, filtering capabilities, or side effects. The term 'List' implies read-only, but no concrete behavioral details are given.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at five words, free of filler or redundancy. It front-loads the essential purpose. While it is minimal, it earns its place without wasting words, though it could be slightly more detailed without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The single-sentence description is far too incomplete for this complexity. It does not mention pagination, date filtering, search, or what is returned, leaving the agent without critical usage context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 10 parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what is in the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate. It does not attempt to compensate for any parameter ambiguity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and resource ('transactions') with a specific scope ('for a specific category'), which distinguishes it from generic list_transactions and account-specific variants. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool should be used when needing transactions for a single category, but it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to siblings like list_transactions or list_account_transactions. Usage context is implied but not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description only says 'create' and 'upload'—it does not disclose potential side effects, required permissions, data size limits, or error behavior. No mention of authentication requirements or reversibility.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is extremely concise and front-loaded with the action, but it is minimal to the point of under-specification. However, it efficiently communicates the primary purpose without wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple create tool with full schema coverage, the description is adequate but lacks any statement about return values or post-creation behavior. No output schema exists, so the description could have briefly noted what the response contains.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers all parameters with 100% description coverage; description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool creates a new attachment and explicitly mentions upload, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_attachment, get_attachment, and list_attachments.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or when to use assign_attachment or other related tools. The usage is implied from the create verb but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It simply says 'Create a new transaction' without disclosing any side effects, required permissions, return values, or validation behavior, leaving the agent without critical behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no fluff or redundancy. It is efficiently written and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 11 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is too sparse. It provides no context about the transaction creation process, prerequisites, or expected behavior, making it inadequate 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.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all 11 parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate given the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a new transaction in a transaction account' uses a specific verb (Create) and resource (transaction in a transaction account), clearly distinguishing it from update_transaction, delete_transaction, and list_transactions siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives like update_transaction or list_transactions. The description only states what it does, not when it should be invoked.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only states 'Delete a PocketSmith category' without mentioning permanence, side effects, required permissions, or consequences. This leaves important behavioral traits undisclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately concise for a tool with one parameter.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), but with no annotations, the description should disclose more about the deletion behavior, such as whether it is permanent or affects related categories. The current description is minimal and does not provide enough context for safe use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema fully describes the 'id' parameter as 'The category ID', and the description adds no additional parameter meaning. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Delete' and the resource 'category', making it clear what the tool does. It is distinct from sibling tools like get_category, update_category, and list_categories, which serve different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, any prerequisites, or alternatives. It simply states the action, leaving the agent to infer context without explicit direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It adds only that the operation is scoped to the authenticated user, but does not mention read-only behavior, potential side effects such as caching or computation, or what data the summary covers (e.g., time period, budget categories).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words or filler. Every word contributes to stating the core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple zero-parameter read tool, the description is minimally adequate, but it lacks detail about the returned summary's contents. Since there is no output schema, the description should have clarified what a 'budget summary' includes (e.g., totals, time range, categories) to fully support an agent's invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. Per the rubric, 0 params earns a baseline score of 4. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but none is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('budget summary') and clarifies scope ('for the authenticated user'). However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like list_budget or get_trend_analysis, leaving some ambiguity about what a 'summary' entails.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states the basic function and offers no context about scenarios, exclusions, or relationships to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Update', implying a write operation, but does not mention permissions, side effects, idempotency, or any impacts on related data. This is a significant transparency gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words, fully front-loaded with the essential verb and resource. It is maximally concise and well-structured for a simple action, though it sacrifices depth for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 11 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain return values, exceptions, related operations, or the effect on the transaction's associations. The schema covers parameter semantics, but contextual behavior is entirely absent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage, with detailed descriptions for all 11 parameters (e.g., 'New date (YYYY-MM-DD)', 'Comma-separated labels'). The description adds no parameter information, but since the schema fully documents parameters, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update a PocketSmith transaction' uses a specific verb (update) and a specific resource (transaction), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_transaction, delete_transaction, and update_transaction_account. The resource is unambiguous and the action is clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, no exclusions, and no mention of prerequisites. It is purely a definition, leaving the agent to infer usage from the schema and tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It notes the merge option but does not state whether deletion is permanent, what happens to accounts if not merged, or any permission requirements. For a destructive operation, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, no redundancy, and the most critical information (delete + optional merge) is front-loaded. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter delete tool with full schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, it omits consequences and safety information that would typically be expected for a destructive op, so it falls short of being fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description adds little beyond restating the optionality of merge_into_id, so it does not meaningfully enhance what the schema already explains.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the primary action (delete) and the optional merge behavior, making it distinct from related tools like update_institution or list_institutions. The verb 'Delete' combined with the resource 'institution' leaves no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. There is no mention of when merging accounts is appropriate or needed, so an agent lacks context for choosing between deleting directly or merging first.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get a PocketSmith event by ID' and does not disclose read-only nature, error handling, authentication requirements, or return format. The verb 'Get' implies a read operation, but no additional behavioral context is given.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. It contains no fluff or redundant information and is appropriately sized for a simple get tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is low complexity with a well-documented schema, but the description lacks usage guidance and return value details. While it is adequate for a basic get operation, it does not fully compensate for the absence of annotations or output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'id', including its format ('{id}-{timestamp}'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get a PocketSmith event by ID' clearly states the verb (get), the resource (event), and the method (by ID). This distinguishes it from sibling get_* tools like get_transaction or get_account, which target different resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_events or other get_* tools. It does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description only says 'List all accounts', which implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose any behavioral traits such as pagination, ordering, response format, or whether archived accounts are included. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and fails to add meaningful behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that immediately conveys the core functionality. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, containing no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter, simple list tool, the description is mostly sufficient. However, given the variety of sibling account tools, a brief note on scope (e.g., 'all account types' vs. institution-specific) would enhance completeness. Still, it is adequate for basic selection.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. Per rules, the baseline is 4; the description adds no ambiguity around parameters since none exist.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and the resource ('accounts'), scoped to 'the authenticated user'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list_institution_accounts' and 'list_transaction_accounts' in scope, though it does not explicitly name these alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or compare with 'list_institution_accounts' or 'get_account'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It implies a read-only operation via 'List' and notes user scoping, but lacks disclosure of pagination, output format, or any side effects. The behavior is predictable but not richly disclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the verb and clearly structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a simple list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description gives the core purpose but does not explain what 'budget analysis' entails or how it differs from budget summary. Adequate but minimal for an agent to fully disambiguate among siblings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'roll_up', so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it does not explain when roll_up might be useful or its implications, but the schema already defines it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('budget analysis') with a scope ('for all categories for the authenticated user'). It is specific and distinguishes the operation from siblings like get_budget_summary at a high level.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_budget_summary or get_trend_analysis. The context is implied but no explicit exclusions or preference conditions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only restates the tool's name with additional parameter context; it does not mention read-only nature, side effects, authentication, rate limits, or any other behavioral traits. 'Get' implies a read operation, but this is minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and efficiently conveys the key inputs. It is appropriately concise for a straightforward GET operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool accepts 6 required parameters and has no output schema. The description does not explain what 'trend analysis' returns, how results are structured, or any limitations. Without annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete 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.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers all 6 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds no new meaning beyond summarizing that categories and scenarios are the focus and a date range is involved. As schema coverage is high, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get trend analysis for specific categories and scenarios over a date range'. It specifies the action (get), the resource (trend analysis), and the scope (categories, scenarios, date range), which distinguishes it from any sibling tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool (when trend analysis is needed for categories/scenarios over a date range) but provides no explicit comparison to alternatives or exclusions. There are no clear sibling conflicts, so the implied usage is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are available, so the description is responsible for disclosing behavior. It only states the action and does not mention permissions, return format, or error handling, which leaves the agent with incomplete information for a potentially meaningful operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence that front-loads the verb and object. It contains no unnecessary words and is easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple get-by-ID tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides the essential information. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning the return value or typical usage context, but it is sufficient for the tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already fully describes the 'id' parameter at 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it 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.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'PocketSmith user by ID', which precisely defines the action and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_me that retrieve the current user without an ID.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 such as get_me. It does not mention any context, exclusions, or preferred scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without revealing whether the title is replaced, what happens to the existing title, any permission requirements, or the return value. This is insufficient for a mutation tool with no annotation support.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the purpose, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently conveys the core action and target. It lacks some behavioral context (e.g., idempotency, error conditions), but given the simplicity, it is nearly complete. The only minor gap is not stating that only the title field is updated, though the schema implies this.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema fully describes both parameters (id and title) with clear descriptions, achieving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no additional semantic nuance beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Update' and clearly identifies the resource 'attachment' and the specific field 'title'. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like create_attachment, delete_attachment, and assign_attachment by specifying the update action and the title attribute.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It does not mention that the attachment must already exist or that this tool is for modifying an existing attachment's title, unlike assignments or creations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states the function ('List attachments') without mentioning potential side effects, ordering, pagination, or return format. For a read-only operation this is less risky, but the lack of any behavioral detail is a notable gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of six words, front-loaded with the verb and resource. There is no redundant or extraneous information, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, so the description must compensate. It clearly states the operation and scope, which is sufficient for basic invocation. However, it does not clarify what the response contains (e.g., attachment metadata) or differentiate from list_attachments, leaving some contextual gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema fully describes the single parameter (transaction_id) with 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, merely restating the scope. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameter clearly.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('attachments') with a clear scope ('for a specific transaction'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_attachments (which likely lists all attachments) and get_attachment (which retrieves a single attachment). It fully explains what the tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is used to list attachments scoped to a transaction, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like list_attachments or assign_attachment. There is no mention of exclusions or alternative tools, leaving usage context implicit rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Update' and gives examples, but does not mention partial vs full update, permissions required, side effects, reversibility, or response behavior. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that immediately states the purpose and gives two concrete examples. No wasted words, and it is front-loaded with the primary verb and resource.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple update tool with fully described parameters, the description is adequate but not rich. It lacks information about output, error behavior, or any special constraints. Given no output schema and no annotations, more detail would be helpful, but the basic purpose is covered.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers all 4 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add parameter details. The tool description adds no extra semantic information beyond the schema, but baseline 3 applies due to high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Update a PocketSmith transaction account' with specific examples ('change its institution or starting balance'). This distinguishes it from siblings like update_account, which likely targets a different resource type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for what the tool does but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or include exclusions. It implies usage for updating transaction accounts, but lacks guidance on when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'existing' attachment, which hints at not creating one, but does not disclose whether it overwrites an existing assignment, any permission requirements, or side effects. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that conveys all essential information with no redundancy. It is optimally concise and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with only two required parameters, and the schema covers them. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is minimal but adequate for a basic attach operation. More detail on conflict behavior would be helpful, but the low complexity makes the current description mostly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters clearly documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Assign') and identifies the resource ('attachment') and target ('transaction'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like create_attachment (which creates) and unassign_attachment (which removes).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the use case (when you need to attach an existing attachment to a transaction) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or any exclusions. Given the simplicity of the operation and clear sibling names, this is acceptable but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without mentioning return format, error behavior, permissions, or side effects. While 'get' implies read-only, the description adds no context beyond the tool name, failing to disclose any behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that states the exact purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no filler. Every word earns its place, making it efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple single-parameter getter, the description is adequate: it specifies the resource and lookup key. Though there is no output schema, the tool complexity is low and the name 'get_attachment' likely implies a return value. It could benefit from noting the response shape, but given the simplicity, it is reasonably complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There is one parameter (id) with 100% schema description coverage. The description says 'by ID', which matches the schema but adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Thus the baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get a PocketSmith attachment by ID' uses a specific verb and resource, and the 'by ID' qualifier clearly distinguishes this single-item retrieval from sibling tools like list_attachments. It leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The usage context is implied: use when you have an attachment ID. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_attachments to retrieve all attachments). The description does not mention exclusions or prerequisites beyond the ID, which is already clear from the schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must bear the full weight of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'List' and 'for the authenticated user.' It doesn't mention pagination, ordering, response format, or any authentication nuances beyond the user scope, so the agent is left without important behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, short sentence that immediately states the core action and resource. It contains no filler words or redundant information, achieving excellent conciseness and clear front-loading of the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides the essential information for an agent to know what it returns (a list of transaction accounts) and for whom (the authenticated user). It lacks explicit return format or pagination details, but for a simple, parameterless list tool, this is sufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
This tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter details to document. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the empty schema, but this is appropriate and earns the baseline score of 4 for a no-parameter tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List'), resource ('transaction accounts'), and scope ('for the authenticated user'), making it unambiguous what the tool does. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_institution_accounts by the 'transaction' qualifier, so an agent can immediately recognize its purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_accounts or list_institution_accounts. It only describes the action, leaving the agent without explicit context for choosing this over related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely restates the tool's name without explaining side effects (e.g., whether the attachment is deleted), permissions, or reversibility, so it provides minimal additional transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no unnecessary words, front-loading the essential purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter operation with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. However, it could be more complete by clarifying that the attachment record itself is not deleted (only the association is removed), which is a notable contextual gap given the absence of annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides complete descriptions for both parameters (coverage 100%), and the description adds no additional parameter semantics. The baseline of 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly specifies the action ('unassign') and the resource ('attachment') in context ('from a transaction'), making it distinct from sibling tools like assign_attachment or delete_attachment.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The usage context is implied by the verb 'unassign' and the mention of transaction, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives such as delete_attachment or list_transaction_attachments.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention what 'details' are returned, how not-found cases are handled, or whether the operation is read-only beyond the inherent meaning of 'Get'. This is a significant gap for a tool with no structured annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and resource. There is no wasted wording or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with only one well-documented parameter, but there is no output schema and no annotation. The description is adequate for basic invocation, but it lacks any detail about the return payload, error behavior, or additional context that would make it fully self-contained for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description for parameter 'id' already explains it is a currency code with examples (NZD, USD), and the schema description coverage is 100%. The description's phrase 'by code' adds minimal value beyond the schema, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema fully documents the parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get details for a specific currency by code' uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('currency by code'), clearly indicating a fetch-by-identifier operation. It implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_currencies, which enumerate all currencies.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'specific currency by code' clearly implies the tool is for retrieving a single currency when the code is known, as opposed to listing all currencies. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it falls slightly short of a perfect score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of transparency. It discloses that the operation is a list/filter by scenario and date range, which implies a read-only behavior, but it does not mention pagination, ordering, authorization requirements, or return format. For a simple list tool this is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, compact sentence that directly states the tool's action, target, and constraints. Every word is necessary and there is no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is a straightforward filtered-list operation with three well-documented parameters and no output schema. The description sufficiently conveys the core purpose, but it omits details that could be relevant in context, such as what happens with no matching events or whether results are sorted. This is acceptable but not complete enough for a higher score.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter already documented clearly (scenario_id, start_date, end_date). The description only reiterates the date-range and scenario scope, adding no new semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') and clearly identifies the resource ('events') scoped to 'a specific scenario within a date range'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list_events' by adding scenario and date filtering.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The usage context is implied by the phrasing 'for a specific scenario within a date range'—an agent can infer when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives like 'list_events', so guidance is only implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses a key trait (returns children) but does not explicitly state the read-only nature, error behavior, or authentication requirements. For a simple GET, this is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the action, resource, and a behavioral detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple get-by-ID tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the identifier, the resource type, and a notable behavior (children). Lack of return format or error handling is acceptable given the simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers 100% of the single parameter (id) with a clear description, so the tool description adds no additional parameter semantics. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'a PocketSmith category by ID', adding the scope 'including children'. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_categories, update_category, or delete_category.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for fetching a single category by ID, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like list_categories or list_category_transactions. The 'including children' note offers some context, but exclusions are not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not add extra context such as error handling, authentication requirements, or return format. It is not misleading, but it offers no more than what the verb alone suggests.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the essential operation without any redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description is nearly complete. It clearly identifies the resource and retrieval method. However, it does not explicitly state what the response contains, which would be expected without an output schema. Still, for a 'get by ID' tool, this is quite adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'id' with description 'The institution ID'. The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get'), the resource ('PocketSmith institution'), and the scope ('by ID'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list_institutions' (listing) and 'update_institution' / 'delete_institution' (mutations).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for retrieving a single institution when the ID is known, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives like 'list_institutions'. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It only states the listing scope, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as pagination, ordering, read-only status, or whether soft-deleted events are included. This leaves significant gaps for an agent relying on the description alone.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose and scope. No filler or redundant content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It could mention the return format or ordering, but the core usage is clear. The lack of annotations and output schema lowers the baseline, but the tool's simplicity keeps it adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema fully describes both parameters (start_date, end_date) with formats. The description's mention of 'date range' adds marginal context but does not go beyond the schema. This matches the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists events for the authenticated user within a date range. The verb 'list', resource 'events', and scope are specific, distinguishing it from siblings like get_event (single event) and list_scenario_events (scenario-specific).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context: it is for the authenticated user's events filtered by date range. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use alternatives (e.g., get_event for a single event), though the sibling list makes the distinction implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'List' indicates a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose any potential side effects, authentication requirements, or access scoping (e.g., whether only user-visible accounts are returned). It provides basic transparency but lacks additional behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one short sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action and resource. It contains no irrelevant information and is perfectly sized for a simple list operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It clearly states the tool returns all accounts for an institution, but because there is no output schema, it could benefit from a hint about the return format or any pagination behavior. Still, it is sufficiently complete for a straightforward list tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% with a clear description for institution_id ('The institution ID'). The description 'for a specific institution' only restates the parameter's role, adding no new semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'accounts' and a clear scope ('for a specific institution'), distinguishing it from siblings like list_accounts and list_transaction_accounts. It clearly states what the tool does in a single, unambiguous sentence.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool should be used when you need accounts belonging to a particular institution, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like list_accounts or list_transaction_accounts. No exclusions or alternative references are provided, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior of creating a rule and auto-categorizing by payee match, but does not mention side effects, handling of duplicates, or return value. It is not misleading but lacks depth.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently conveys the action, object, and mechanism.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple 2-parameter create tool with no output schema, the description covers the basic function but does not clarify return format, conflict behavior, or whether the rule applies retroactively. It is adequate but leaves some operational details implicit.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers 100% of parameters with meaningful descriptions. The description itself adds little beyond restating the purpose (payee match and auto-categorization), so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool creates a category rule and specifies the mechanism (auto-categorising by payee match). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_category (creates a category) and list_category_rules (lists rules).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use this tool: to create a rule that auto-categorizes transactions. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the name and description make the use case obvious relative to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only restates the tool's name ('Clear') and gives a high-level purpose ('to force recalculation'), but fails to disclose side effects, scope (global vs. user-specific), permission requirements, or idempotency. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the description, making it maximally concise and clearly structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description explains what it does and why, but lacks important context such as whether the cache clear is global, what happens next, or any caveats. It is minimum viable but has clear gaps in behavioral detail.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema is an empty object, so there is nothing to document. Per the baseline for 0-param tools, a score of 4 is appropriate; the description adds no parameter details because none exist.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Clear') and resource ('forecast cache') with a clear intent ('to force recalculation'). This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools, none of which mention cache or recalculation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It implies the tool should be used when forecast results are stale and a fresh recalculation is needed. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though no direct siblings offer similar functionality.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the response includes transaction accounts and scenarios, but does not state whether the operation is read-only, error behavior, or authorization requirements. For a simple get-by-ID, this is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently communicates the action, the resource, and the key included data, earning a perfect score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple—one parameter, no output schema—and the description gives enough context about the return payload ('including transaction accounts and scenarios') to be useful. It doesn't cover error handling or response structure, but for a low-complexity get tool this is acceptable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with the parameter 'id' documented as 'The account ID'. The description merely restates 'by ID', adding no additional semantic value beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('PocketSmith account by ID'), and adds scope by mentioning 'including transaction accounts and scenarios'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_transaction_account, which likely focuses on a single transaction account.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the use case: when you need a full account with its transaction accounts and scenarios. It provides clear context but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, such as 'use get_transaction_account for a single transaction account' or 'use list_accounts for multiple accounts'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a read operation ('get') and clarifies the 'authenticated' nature of the user, but it does not describe authentication requirements, error conditions, or return format. This is acceptable for a simple read tool but not exceptional.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of seven words, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (zero params, no annotations, no output schema), the description is largely complete. It conveys the operation, but could be slightly richer by mentioning that it returns the user profile. Still adequate for a zero-parameter getter.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is trivially 100%. According to the baseline for 0 params, a score of 4 is appropriate. The description does not need to add param semantics because there are none.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool gets the currently authenticated PocketSmith user, using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from get_user, which likely targets a user by ID, and other sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool (when you need the current authenticated user) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions like get_user. Usage guidance is minimal and not fully differentiated from siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description provides a basic read-only implication but fails to disclose any behavioral details such as return format, error handling (e.g., 404 if not found), or authentication requirements. For a simple getter, minimal disclosure is expected, but some context is still missing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no superfluous words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple get-by-ID tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers the core purpose and usage context, though it could mention what happens on failure or the return type, but these are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one parameter 'id' with 100% description coverage. The tool description reinforces the ID concept but adds no additional semantic details beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('a single PocketSmith transaction') with a scope constraint ('by ID'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_transactions and create_transaction by emphasizing the singular retrieval nature.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'by ID' implies the tool is used when a specific transaction ID is known, clearly differentiating it from listing tools. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use this tool or mention alternative sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not add further context such as error behavior, response shape, or any special constraints. It is adequate but minimal, without extra value beyond the obvious.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every word earns its place, conveying the resource, action, and parameter scope efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only tool with one well-documented parameter, the description is complete enough to understand the tool's function. It does not mention the return format, but the absence of an output schema and the straightforward nature of a 'get by ID' operation make this a minor gap rather than a critical omission.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema fully covers the only parameter 'id' with a clear description, so baseline is 3. The description's 'by ID' adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so no bonus is warranted.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: retrieving a specific PocketSmith transaction account by its ID. The verb 'Get' combined with the resource 'transaction account' and the qualifier 'by ID' makes the purpose specific and immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_transaction_accounts (which lists all) and update_transaction_account (which modifies).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for retrieving a single transaction account when the ID is known, providing clear context. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the resource and constraint are unambiguous, so no exclusions are needed for a simple getter.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the result is a tree structure and that it is scoped to the authenticated user, which are useful behavioral details. However, it does not mention pagination, sorting, depth limits, or error cases, leaving some gaps for a list operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that states the resource, scope, and return structure. Every word adds value and there is no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no params, no output schema) and the sibling context, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does and its return shape. It could mention whether the tree is recursive or how categories are ordered, but for a basic list operation it is nearly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds no parameter semantics because none are needed. This score reflects the absence of any parameter-related burden.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List'), the resource ('all categories'), and the scope ('for the authenticated user'), with a distinctive return detail ('returns tree structure'). This unambiguously separates it from siblings like get_category (singular) and list_category_rules (different resource).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear context that this tool is for retrieving all categories in a tree format for the authenticated user, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives or when not to use it. The usage is implied rather than directly contrasted with e.g., get_category.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the authenticated user scope and 'all' rules, which implies read-only and comprehensive retrieval, but it does not disclose pagination, ordering, return structure, or any potential side effects. This is acceptable for a simple list but lacks depth.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is direct and free of filler. It conveys the essential information without any wasted words, achieving high conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a parameterless list tool with no output schema, the description gives enough context to know the tool's purpose and scope. While it could mention response format, the simplicity of the operation makes the description reasonably complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the input schema is empty and there is no parameter meaning to elaborate. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter details, which is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('category rules'), and scopes the operation to the authenticated user. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_categories, which handles categories rather than category rules.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for retrieving all category rules belonging to the current user, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no exclusions or alternative recommendations, though the context is sufficient for a straightforward list operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must convey behavior. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose authentication requirements, response format, or potential pagination. Adequate for a simple enumeration but lacks deeper context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. It conveys the action and scope efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is low complexity with no parameters and no output schema. The description communicates that the return is a list of all supported time zones, which is adequate for selection and invocation, though it does not specify the format of each time zone entry.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds minimal scope context ('supported by PocketSmith') beyond the empty schema, which is sufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses 'List' as the verb and 'time zones supported by PocketSmith' as the resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_currencies or list_accounts.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use or alternatives are given, but the intent is obvious as the only time zone listing tool among siblings. Usage is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation, and the authenticated-user scope adds meaningful behavioral context. It omits pagination or return format, but for a zero-parameter list tool this is acceptable.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence directly front-loaded with verb, resource, and scope. There is no filler or redundant information; every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list operation with no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete enough. It states what is listed (institutions) and for whom (authenticated user), making the purpose fully understandable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the empty schema fully covers parameter semantics. The description correctly does not repeat parameter information, and the baseline of 4 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses specific verb 'List' with resource 'institutions' and scope 'for the authenticated user'. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_institution (single) and list_institution_accounts (nested accounts).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The context is clear: use when you need all institutions for the authenticated user. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scope and verb make the usage context unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It adds context by specifying the scope ('across the authenticated user's transactions') and that it returns all labels, which implies a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly state that it is read-only, nor does it describe potential pagination, ordering, or absence of labels. Given the trivial nature of a list operation, this is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that fully conveys the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded with the action verb 'List' and contains no filler or redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It states what is returned (all labels) and the scope (transactions of the authenticated user). The only missing detail is the exact format of the response, but since no output schema exists, the description delivers enough context for basic usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the input schema is trivially covered. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but none is needed. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description successfully avoids misleading the agent.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('all labels'), and a scoping context ('used across the authenticated user's transactions'). It distinguishes itself from sibling list tools (e.g., list_transactions, list_categories) by focusing on labels, which no other sibling tool handles.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly implies when to use the tool: whenever you need the set of labels attached to the authenticated user's transactions. There are no sibling tools for labels, so no explicit alternatives are required. However, it does not mention when not to use it or any preconditions, but the simplicity of the tool makes this minor.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does add the behavioral scope of 'authenticated user' and 'all saved searches', but does not explicitly state read-only behavior, return format, or pagination. Given the simplicity of the tool, this partial disclosure warrants a 3.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that conveys all essential information without any redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no parameters, no output schema, and a straightforward purpose, the description is complete. It tells the agent exactly what the tool does and for whom.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline score is 4. The description correctly omits parameter details since there are none to document.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description specifies the verb 'List', the resource 'saved searches', and the scope 'for the authenticated user', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_transactions and list_categories.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implied usage is clear: use when you need to retrieve all saved searches for the current user. No explicit alternatives or exclusions are needed for this simple tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. 'List' unambiguously indicates a read-only operation with no side effects. The description also clarifies the scope ('all currencies supported'), which adds useful context. It doesn't mention authentication or response structure, but these are not critical for a simple list tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and object. Every word earns its place ('List', 'all', 'currencies', 'supported by PocketSmith').
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter list operation, this description is complete. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the clear 'List all currencies' phrasing, making the return value (a list of currency identifiers or objects) predictable. No additional behavioral or contextual information is necessary for this simple tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool accepts zero parameters, and the input schema is an empty object. The description correctly implies no arguments are needed. Since there are no parameters to describe, the baseline score of 4 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'List' and clearly states the resource 'all currencies supported by PocketSmith'. It distinguishes from the sibling tool get_currency, which retrieves a single currency, by explicitly indicating the full set. No ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly indicates this returns the complete set of currencies, implying it should be used when a full enumeration is needed. However, it does not explicitly mention the alternative get_currency for single-currency lookups, so it lacks explicit when-to-use-vs-alternatives guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![pocketsmith-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/joeswann/pocketsmith-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/joeswann/pocketsmith-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![pocketsmith-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/joeswann/pocketsmith-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/joeswann/pocketsmith-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/joeswann/pocketsmith-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server