Fabits MCP Server

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. 'Get complete portfolio overview' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what data format is returned, if there are rate limits, or how errors are handled. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 at just four words ('Get complete portfolio overview'), with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient despite potential content gaps.

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 portfolio management tools and the absence of both annotations and an output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what data is returned, how the portfolio is structured, or what 'complete' means in this context. For a tool that presumably returns complex financial data, more context is needed for effective use.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'user_id' well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in 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 'Get complete portfolio overview' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('portfolio overview'), making the purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what constitutes a 'complete portfolio overview' and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'fabits_get_basket_holdings' or 'fabits_get_transactions' that might provide related but different portfolio data.

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. With multiple sibling tools like 'fabits_get_basket_holdings' and 'fabits_get_transactions' that might offer overlapping or complementary portfolio information, there's no indication of what makes this tool distinct or when it should be preferred over others.

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