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 states what the tool does (aggregation) but doesn't describe any behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what happens with invalid inputs. For a tool with 3 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently lists grouping options. Every element earns its place, 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 has 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, but does have an output schema, the description is moderately complete. The output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the description should do more to explain parameter usage and behavioral context for this aggregation operation.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions grouping options (category, subcategory, merchant, account) which partially explains the 'group_by' parameter, but doesn't clarify the 'start_date' and 'end_date' parameters at all. The description adds some value for one parameter but leaves two completely unexplained.

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: 'Aggregate spending by category | subcategory | merchant | account.' It specifies the verb (aggregate) and resource (spending), and the grouping options provide some specificity. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'get_transactions_tool' or 'search_transactions_tool' that might also retrieve spending data.

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. It doesn't mention when this aggregation tool is preferred over transaction listing tools, nor does it specify any prerequisites or exclusions. The user must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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