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. It mentions the tool retrieves cashflow analysis but doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, involves rate limits, returns real-time or cached data, or what the output format is. The description is minimal and lacks critical behavioral context.

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 details. Every sentence adds value—no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the main action and uses bullet-like formatting for parameters.

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 an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and a simple input schema with 2 parameters, the description is moderately complete. It covers parameter semantics well but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines, making it adequate but with clear gaps for a financial analysis tool.

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 description adds significant value beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that start_date and end_date are in YYYY-MM-DD format, clarifies they are interdependent (each requires the other), and provides default behaviors (defaults to current month). This compensates well for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 action ('Get cashflow analysis') and the resource ('from Monarch Money'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_cashflow_summary' or 'get_transactions_summary', which might offer similar financial insights.

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 like 'get_cashflow_summary' or other financial analysis tools in the sibling list. It only describes what the tool does, not the context or prerequisites for its use.

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