plaid-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks critical behavioral details. It mentions exchanging tokens and caching accounts but doesn't disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'caches accounts' entails operationally. The description provides basic intent but insufficient behavioral transparency.

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 focused sentences that front-load the main purpose. Every word earns its place—no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration while clearly communicating the tool's role in a workflow.

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, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and 2 parameters, the description provides adequate basic context but lacks completeness. It explains the tool's role in a Link session workflow but misses details about authentication, error handling, return values, and parameter specifics needed for reliable 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?

With 0% schema description coverage for 2 parameters, the description adds minimal semantic value. It mentions 'link_token' indirectly via 'public_token' but doesn't explain parameter purposes, relationships, or the 'timeout_seconds' default behavior. The description partially compensates but leaves significant gaps in parameter 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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Finalize', 'Exchanges', 'caches') and resources ('Link session', 'public_token', 'access_token', 'accounts'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'link_account' by focusing on completion rather than initiation.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('once the user has completed [a Link session] in their browser'), implying it should follow an initial linking process. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings.

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