Fabits MCP Server

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 it 'gets' data, implying a read-only operation, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or the format of returned SIP data. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly, with no wasted words or unnecessary elaboration.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a data retrieval tool. It doesn't explain what data is returned (e.g., SIP details, statuses, amounts), how results are structured, or any limitations (e.g., only returns SIPs for the specified user). For a tool in a financial context with siblings involving mutations, more context is needed to ensure safe and 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'user_id' documented as a required unique identifier for user session state. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining why user_id is needed or how it affects the SIP retrieval. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 ('Get') and resource ('all active and inactive SIPs'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'fabits_get_portfolio' or 'fabits_get_transactions' by specifying SIPs, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'fabits_start_sip' or 'fabits_cancel_sip' beyond the read vs. write distinction.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the description implies it's for retrieving SIP data, it doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication state), compare it to similar tools like 'fabits_get_portfolio' for broader holdings, or indicate scenarios where it's preferred over other data-fetching tools.

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