plaid-mcp

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 implies a read-only operation by describing data retrieval, but doesn't specify whether authentication is required, rate limits exist, what happens when account_id is null, or the format/structure of returned data. The description is minimal and lacks important behavioral context for a financial data tool.

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 extremely concise - a single sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose and data fields. Every word earns its place, with no wasted text or redundancy. The structure is front-loaded with the main purpose followed by specific data elements in parentheses.

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 financial data retrieval tool with no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter documentation, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens when account_id is null (all accounts vs default account), doesn't describe the return format, and provides no context about authentication, permissions, or data freshness. The description is too minimal given the complexity of financial data tools.

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 provides no information about the account_id parameter, which has 0% schema description coverage. However, with only one parameter that's optional (defaults to null), the baseline is higher. The description doesn't compensate for the lack of parameter documentation, but the simplicity of a single optional parameter keeps this from being a critical failure.

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 retrieves 'current investment positions' and lists the specific data fields returned (tickers, quantities, market value, cost basis). It uses a specific verb ('positions') and identifies the resource (investment holdings), though it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like get_balances_tool or get_investment_transactions_tool.

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 sibling tools like get_balances_tool (which might provide different financial data) or get_investment_transactions_tool (which might show transaction history rather than current positions), nor does it specify any prerequisites or context for usage.

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