plaid-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions a prerequisite (Income product enabled) but doesn't describe other key traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or what the return format looks like. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in 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 extremely concise with two sentences that directly state the purpose and a key prerequisite. Every word earns its place, and it's front-loaded with the core functionality. There's no wasted text or redundancy.

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 the tool has no parameters (simplifying input) and no output schema (increasing the need for output description), the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and a prerequisite but lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., read-only status, return format) and doesn't explain what the output contains, which is a gap since there's no output schema to rely on.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it appropriately doesn't mention any. A baseline of 4 is applied since no parameters exist, and the description doesn't mislead about inputs.

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 what the tool does ('Bank-detected income streams') with a specific resource (income streams) and verb (detected). It distinguishes from siblings like get_balances_tool or get_transactions_tool by focusing on income data rather than balances or transactions. However, it doesn't specify the exact scope (e.g., all income streams vs. recent ones), keeping it from a perfect 5.

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 some usage context by stating 'Requires Income product enabled in your Plaid dashboard,' which implies a prerequisite condition. However, it doesn't explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., vs. get_holdings_tool for investment income) or mention any exclusions, leaving the guidance incomplete.

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