monarch-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a 'Get' operation (implying read-only), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, error conditions, or what 'daily aggregate' means in practice (e.g., timezone, calculation method). The description is minimal and lacks necessary context for safe use.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a structured 'Args:' section. Every sentence earns its place, though the formatting could be slightly cleaner (e.g., bullet points instead of plain text). No wasted words, but minor structural improvements are possible.

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 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description partially compensates by explaining parameters. However, it lacks behavioral context (e.g., authentication, errors) and doesn't mention the output schema exists. For a tool that aggregates financial data, more completeness around usage constraints and result interpretation would be beneficial.

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 provides clear semantics for all three parameters: 'start_date' and 'end_date' are explained with format (YYYY-MM-DD), and 'account_type' is noted as optional with its filtering purpose. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't specify allowed values for 'account_type' or default behaviors when dates are null.

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: 'Get daily aggregate net value of all accounts.' This specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('daily aggregate net value'), and scope ('all accounts'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_account_snapshots_by_type' or 'get_recent_account_balances,' which prevents a perfect score.

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. With multiple sibling tools that appear related (e.g., 'get_account_snapshots_by_type,' 'get_accounts'), there's no indication of when this aggregate view is preferred over detailed snapshots or other account data tools.

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