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 mentions the HTTP method (GET) and optional pagination parameters, but doesn't describe important behaviors like whether this requires authentication, rate limits, response format, error conditions, or what 'company currencies' specifically means in this context.

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 appropriately brief with three concise components: purpose statement, HTTP method, and parameter listing. Each element serves a purpose, though the parameter listing could be integrated more naturally. It's front-loaded with the core functionality.

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-only list operation with full parameter documentation in the schema, the description provides adequate basic context. However, without annotations or output schema, it should ideally explain more about the response structure, authentication requirements, and typical use cases to be truly complete.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by listing parameter names but provides no additional context about their usage, relationships, or practical examples. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('company currencies'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_currency' (singular) and 'create_currency' by focusing on listing multiple currencies. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list_* tools in the same domain.

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 prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or compare with similar tools like 'get_default_currency' or 'get_currency'. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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