monarch-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Get split information for a transaction,' implying a read-only operation, but does not specify aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or the nature of the split information (e.g., what splits are, how they are returned). This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond basic purpose.

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 sized and front-loaded, with the purpose stated clearly in the first sentence and parameter details following in a structured 'Args' section. There is no unnecessary information, making it efficient, though it could be slightly more concise by integrating the parameter note into the main description.

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 is an output schema (which handles return values), the description's focus on purpose and parameters is adequate. However, for a tool with no annotations and low schema coverage, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like authentication or error handling. The presence of an output schema raises the baseline, but the description does not fully address the tool's operational context, resulting in a moderate score.

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 includes an 'Args' section that documents the single parameter 'transaction_id' and its purpose, adding meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. However, it does not provide details on the format or constraints of 'transaction_id' (e.g., expected string format, examples), so while it compensates somewhat for the schema gap, it does not fully elucidate parameter usage.

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 ('split information for a transaction'), making it immediately understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'get_transaction_details' or 'get_transactions', which might also provide transaction-related information, leaving some ambiguity about its unique role.

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 sibling tools such as 'get_transaction_details' and 'get_transactions' available, there is no indication of scenarios where 'get_transaction_splits' is preferred, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage context unclear.

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