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 a 'redirect_posted' parameter with a default, hinting at some behavior, but fails to explain what 'redirect to posted transaction' means, potential side effects, error handling, or response format. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool operates beyond basic input.

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 concise, with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter details in a structured format. It avoids unnecessary fluff, though the parameter explanations could be more informative. The front-loaded purpose sentence earns its place, but the parameter section is somewhat under-specified.

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's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context, usage guidelines, and details on the 'redirect_posted' parameter. The presence of an output schema mitigates the need to describe return values, but overall completeness is limited.

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 minimal semantics: it names the parameters ('transaction_id', 'redirect_posted') and provides a brief note on the default for 'redirect_posted'. However, with 0% schema description coverage and 2 parameters, this is insufficient to fully compensate—it doesn't explain parameter formats, constraints, or the meaning of 'redirect_posted' in context. The baseline is lowered due to low coverage, but the description offers some value over the bare schema.

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 with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific transaction'), making it immediately understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_transactions' or 'get_transaction_splits', which reduces the score from a perfect 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, such as 'get_transactions' for listing multiple transactions or 'get_transaction_splits' for split details. It lacks context about prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases, offering only basic parameter information without strategic advice.

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