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. It only states the action ('Get') without mentioning any behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only (implied but not explicit), if there are rate limits, authentication needs beyond the user_id parameter, or what the output format might be. This leaves significant gaps for safe and effective tool invocation.

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, concise sentence ('Get transaction history.') that is front-loaded and wastes no words. It efficiently communicates the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, though it could benefit from more detail to improve clarity and completeness.

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 transaction history tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what data is returned (e.g., transaction types, dates, amounts), any limitations (e.g., date ranges, pagination), or how it fits into the broader context of sibling tools. With no annotations and an output schema missing, more detail 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 clear documentation for both parameters (user_id and limit). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining the scope of 'transaction history' or how parameters interact. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, but the description doesn't compensate or 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 'Get transaction history' clearly states the action (get) and resource (transaction history), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what kind of transactions (e.g., investment, payment) and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'fabits_get_sips' or 'fabits_get_portfolio', which also retrieve historical data. This makes it vague compared to more precise alternatives.

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. For example, it doesn't specify if this is for all transactions or a subset, or how it differs from other 'get' tools like 'fabits_get_sips' (for SIPs) or 'fabits_get_portfolio' (for holdings). Without such context, an agent might struggle to choose between similar retrieval tools.

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