Luno MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint: true and readOnlyHint: false, suggesting potential side effects, but the description does not explain what gets destroyed or altered. It adds no behavioral context beyond annotations, such as rate limits or auth needs. However, it does not contradict annotations, as 'List' could imply read-only but annotations clarify it's not read-only, though this is a subtle mismatch rather than direct contradiction.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero waste, efficiently conveying the core action and target. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, avoiding unnecessary elaboration while staying clear.

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 has annotations but no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values, pagination behavior, or error handling. For a tool with destructive hints and multiple parameters, more context is needed to guide effective use, making it inadequate for the complexity.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying 'account_id' is required and pagination via 'max_row' and 'min_row', which is already covered. It meets the baseline for high schema coverage but does not enhance understanding.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('transactions for an account'), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_transaction' (singular) or 'list_rades', which might cause confusion in selection. It specifies the scope but lacks detail on what 'list' entails (e.g., format, sorting).

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 'get_transaction' (for a single transaction) or 'list_rades'. It mentions 'for an account' but does not specify prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual cues for selection among siblings, leaving usage ambiguous.

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