Cost Management MCP

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 states the tool's function but doesn't mention permissions, rate limits, data sources, or output format. For a tool that likely queries financial data, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundancy. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavior, output, or integration with sibling tools, leaving gaps for the agent to infer.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the parameters (startDate, endDate, includeChart). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how the comparison is performed or what 'configured providers' entails, resulting in a baseline score.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('compare costs') and scope ('across all configured providers'), which is specific and meaningful. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'cost_breakdown' or 'cost_trends', which might also involve cost analysis, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'cost_breakdown' or 'provider_balance'. It lacks context about prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools, leaving the agent with minimal usage direction.

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