List all user-recorded APR overrides for linked Plaid accounts.
List every account APR override the user has recorded.
Plaid-only.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "list_overrides_tool"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description implies a read-only operation by using 'List', but it does not explicitly state that no data is modified, nor does it mention permissions or side effects. Since there are no annotations, the description carries the burden, and the implication is not fully disclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and free of fluff. It conveys the exact purpose and a scope constraint ('Plaid-only') in two short sentences, with no redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool, the description is complete. It identifies what is listed (account APR overrides) and the context (user-recorded, Plaid-only). No output schema exists, so no return format explanation is required. It provides enough context for the agent to invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With zero parameters, the baseline is 4. The description adds meaning about the subject (account APR overrides), but since there are no parameters to explain, it does not go beyond the baseline in terms of parameter-specific semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the tool lists account APR overrides, distinguishing it from sibling tools like set_account_override_tool or clear_account_override_tool. The verb 'List' and resource 'account APR override' are explicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'Plaid-only' as a scope constraint but does not explain scenarios for using it (e.g., before setting an override). No comparison to other list tools is offered.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.