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 only describes parameter requirements but doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, what authentication is needed, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what the output contains. For a data retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 perfectly front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by parameter details in a clear 'Args:' section. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it efficient and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 handles return values), 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description does an adequate job explaining the parameters but lacks behavioral context. It's minimally viable for a simple retrieval tool but would benefit from mentioning authentication needs or output characteristics beyond what the output schema provides.

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 successfully adds meaning by specifying date format (YYYY-MM-DD) and the mutual requirement between start_date and end_date, which isn't evident from the schema alone. However, it doesn't explain what happens when both are null (the default), or whether dates are inclusive/exclusive, leaving some ambiguity.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('recurring transactions from Monarch Money'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'get_transactions' or 'get_transactions_summary', which would require explicit comparison to achieve a score of 5.

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_transactions' or other sibling tools. It mentions parameter requirements (start_date requires end_date and vice versa), but this is parameter documentation rather than usage context. No explicit when/when-not statements or alternative tool references are included.

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