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. It implies a read operation by listing transaction types, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination (despite a 'limit' parameter), or response format. For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotations, this is insufficient behavioral disclosure.

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 phrase with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, though this brevity comes at the cost of detail. Every word earns its place by specifying the transaction types.

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 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address parameter usage, behavioral traits, or output expectations, making it inadequate for a tool of this complexity. The agent lacks critical context to use it effectively.

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 for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'Brokerage transactions' but doesn't explain how parameters like 'start_date', 'end_date', 'account_id', or 'limit' affect the query. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema's parameter names.

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 brokerage transactions (buys, sells, dividends, fees), providing a specific verb ('Brokerage transactions') and resource scope. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_transactions_tool' or 'search_transactions_tool', which likely handle similar data but with different filtering or scope.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context for usage, or compare to sibling tools like 'get_transactions_tool' or 'search_transactions_tool', leaving the agent to infer based on tool names alone.

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