plaid-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'delete its local data', implying a destructive operation, but lacks details on permissions required, whether the action is reversible, or any side effects like impact on related accounts or transactions.

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 is front-loaded with the core action, with no unnecessary words or redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly.

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's destructive nature, lack of annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It should address behavioral risks, parameter details, and expected outcomes to adequately guide an agent in a financial data context.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not add any meaning beyond the schema. It does not explain what 'item_id' represents (e.g., a Plaid item identifier for the institution) or where to obtain it, leaving the single parameter undocumented.

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 ('unlink' and 'delete') and identifies the resource ('institution/Plaid item'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'list_linked_institutions_tool' or 'link_account' that handle listing or adding institutions.

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, such as whether it should be used for cleaning up old data or in error scenarios, nor does it mention prerequisites like needing a valid 'item_id' from a linked institution.

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