monarch-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. While 'Get' implies a read operation, the description doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, error conditions, or what format the budget information is returned in. The description mentions parameter defaults but doesn't explain the tool's overall behavior.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. Every sentence earns its place, with no wasted words. The parameter explanations are appropriately detailed without being verbose.

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 that there's an output schema (which means the description doesn't need to explain return values), the description is moderately complete. However, for a tool with no annotations and multiple sibling financial data tools, it should provide more context about what distinguishes this budget retrieval from other data retrieval operations and what authentication/authorization is required.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining all three parameters. It clarifies that start_date and end_date use YYYY-MM-DD format and provides their defaults, and explains what use_v2_goals means. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't explain what happens when dates are null or the implications of v2 goals format.

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 as 'Get budget information from Monarch Money', which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_cashflow' or 'get_transactions', which also retrieve financial data from the same platform.

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 retrieve financial data (get_cashflow, get_transactions, get_accounts, etc.), there's no indication of what makes this budget-specific tool different or when it should be preferred over other data retrieval tools.

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