plaid-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool creates/returns a 'debt_id', indicating a write operation, but lacks details on permissions, error handling, or side effects. It adds some behavioral context (e.g., APR format), but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this is idempotent or has rate limits.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidelines and a key parameter note. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and the structure efficiently conveys essential information in three concise lines.

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 write tool with 7 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers purpose, usage, and one parameter well, but misses details on other parameters, return values beyond 'debt_id', and behavioral traits like error conditions. Given the complexity, more context is needed for full adequacy.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the 'apr' parameter semantics ('percentage, e.g., 18.5 for 18.5%'), which is crucial beyond the schema's type. However, it doesn't explain other parameters like 'balance' units or 'next_payment_due_date' format, leaving gaps for the remaining 6 parameters.

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 specific action ('Track a debt') and resource ('that isn't behind a linked Plaid account'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'list_external_debts_tool' and 'update_external_debt_tool'. It provides concrete examples of use cases (BNPL, medical bills, 401(k) loans), making the purpose highly specific and differentiated.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Use for BNPL, medical bills, 401(k) loans, or debts at non-linkable lenders'), providing clear context for its application. It distinguishes this from tools that handle linked accounts (implied by the sibling list), though it doesn't name specific alternatives, the guidance is comprehensive for the given context.

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