plaid-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does an excellent job disclosing behavioral traits: it explains the asynchronous nature, timing expectations (30-60s wait), dependency on another tool (sync_transactions), and limitations ('some smaller banks don't support on-demand refresh'). Only minor gap: doesn't mention error handling or rate limits.

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?

Perfectly structured and front-loaded: first sentence states core purpose, subsequent sentences provide essential context. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words. Four concise paragraphs cover purpose, usage, workflow, and parameter semantics efficiently.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description provides excellent context about behavior, timing, dependencies, and limitations. It explains the asynchronous workflow clearly. Could be 5 with more detail about return values or error cases, but given the tool's relative simplicity, this is highly complete.

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. It clearly explains the semantics of the single parameter: 'Pass item_id to refresh one institution, or leave empty to refresh everything.' This adds crucial meaning beyond the schema's basic type information. Could be 5 with more detail about item_id format or examples.

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 ('nudge Plaid to pull fresh transactions') and identifies the resource ('transactions from the bank'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'sync_transactions_tool' by explaining this triggers the data pull while sync_transactions ingests it.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('when a user just made a purchase and wants to see it, or when transactions look stale') and when not to use ('Plaid normally refreshes on its own every few hours'). Provides clear alternative guidance ('wait 30-60s then call sync_transactions to ingest any new data').

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