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 implies a read operation by listing data fields, but doesn't specify if it requires authentication, returns all liabilities or filtered ones, handles errors, or has rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with potential data sensitivity.

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 a single, efficient sentence that lists key elements without fluff. It could be slightly more structured by front-loading the action (e.g., 'Retrieve liabilities such as...'), but it's appropriately sized and clear.

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, no output schema, and the tool's complexity (retrieving financial data), the description is incomplete. It lists data fields but doesn't explain return format, error handling, or scope (e.g., all accounts or filtered), making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an AI agent.

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 with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add param info, which is appropriate here. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as it avoids unnecessary detail.

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 lists types of liabilities (credit cards, student loans, mortgages) and data fields (APRs, balances, due dates), which implies a retrieval function. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'list', making the purpose somewhat vague rather than clearly stated as a specific action. It distinguishes from some siblings like 'add_external_debt_tool' by implying read-only access, but not all.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description hints at retrieving liability data, but it doesn't specify contexts, prerequisites, or compare to siblings like 'get_balances_tool' or 'summarize_debt_tool', leaving usage unclear without external context.

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