Rebillia MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the HTTP method (GET) which implies read-only, but doesn't clarify authentication requirements, rate limits, error responses, or what happens if the currency ID doesn't exist. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding tool 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 perfectly concise with two clear sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and HTTP endpoint. Every word earns its place, and the information is front-loaded with the core functionality stated first.

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?

For a read operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't describe what information is returned about the currency, error conditions, or how this tool relates to other currency operations. Given the complexity of the sibling tool set (which includes create, update, delete, and list operations for currencies), more context would be helpful.

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 mentions 'by ID' which aligns with the single 'currencyId' parameter, but adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema already provides (100% coverage). The schema clearly documents it as a required string parameter for company currency ID, so the description meets the baseline but doesn't enhance understanding of parameter meaning or format.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('a company currency by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_currencies' by specifying retrieval of a single currency. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_default_currency' or 'update_currency', which would have earned a perfect 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 when to choose 'get_currency' over 'list_currencies' for multiple currencies, or 'get_default_currency' for the default. There's also no mention of prerequisites like authentication or error conditions.

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