Luno MCP Server

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

The description contradicts the annotations: it describes a read operation ('Get details'), but the annotations include destructiveHint=true (implying data modification) and readOnlyHint=false (implying it's not read-only). This creates a serious inconsistency, as the agent cannot rely on either source for accurate behavioral understanding.

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 front-loaded with a single, direct sentence that states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. Every part of the description earns its place by conveying essential information efficiently.

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 complexity of a tool with contradictory behavioral hints (destructive but described as read-only) and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to resolve the annotation conflicts or provide context on what 'details' are returned, leaving significant gaps for the agent.

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 description adds no meaning beyond what the input schema provides, as schema description coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions. This meets the baseline score of 3, where the schema handles all parameter documentation adequately without extra value from the description.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get details') and resource ('of a specific transaction'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential sibling tools that might also retrieve transaction information, such as 'list_transactions' which appears in the sibling list, 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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'list_transactions' for broader queries or specify prerequisites like needing both account and transaction IDs, leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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