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. While 'Get' implies a read operation, there's no information about pagination behavior (beyond limit/offset parameters), rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what happens with large result sets. The description only documents parameters without explaining the tool's operational behavior.

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 structure is logical with a brief purpose statement followed by comprehensive parameter documentation. However, the description is quite lengthy due to 15 parameters, and the purpose statement could be more informative. While efficient for its content, it lacks the tightness of higher-scoring descriptions that convey more with less.

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 complexity (15 parameters, no annotations, but has output schema), the description is partially complete. It thoroughly documents parameters but lacks behavioral context. The existence of an output schema means return values don't need explanation, but for a data retrieval tool with many filtering options, more operational guidance would be helpful.

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 and 15 parameters, the description fully compensates by providing clear documentation for every parameter. It explains defaults, format requirements (YYYY-MM-DD), constraints (start_date requires end_date), mutual exclusivity (account_id vs account_ids), and the meaning of each filter. This adds substantial value beyond 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 'Get transactions from Monarch Money' - a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('transactions') with source context. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_transaction_details' or 'get_transactions_summary', which would require explicit comparison to earn a 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. With multiple transaction-related sibling tools (get_transaction_details, get_transaction_splits, get_transactions_summary), there's no indication of when this list/retrieval tool is appropriate versus those specialized alternatives. The parameter documentation doesn't substitute for usage context.

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