monarch-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool retrieves data (implying read-only), but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or response format. The parameter documentation adds some context but doesn't fully describe behavioral traits.

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 documentation. Each sentence serves a purpose, though the parameter explanations could be slightly more integrated with the main description rather than appearing as a separate 'Args' section.

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) and the description covers all parameters, the basics are addressed. However, for a financial data tool with no annotations, more context about data freshness, aggregation methods, or relationship to sibling tools would improve completeness.

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: 'limit' with its default, and the date parameters with their format and mutual dependency requirement. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't explain what happens when dates aren't provided.

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 retrieves a cashflow summary with specific components (income, expenses, savings, savings rate), providing a specific verb ('Get') and resource. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'get_cashflow' or 'get_transactions_summary', which may have overlapping functionality.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_cashflow' or 'get_transactions_summary'. The description only lists parameters without contextual usage advice, leaving the agent to infer appropriate scenarios based on tool names alone.

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