Zaim API MCP Server

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 states this creates an income record (implying a write/mutation operation) but provides no information about permissions needed, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on success/failure, rate limits, or what the response looks like. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 a single, efficient sentence in Japanese that directly states the tool's purpose. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. It's appropriately sized for what it communicates.

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?

For a creation/mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens after creation, what the response contains, error conditions, or behavioral characteristics. The description should provide more context about this being a write operation with specific implications.

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 schema has 100% description coverage with clear parameter documentation in Japanese. The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't need to compensate for schema gaps.

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 action ('作成します' - creates) and resource ('収入記録' - income record) in Zaim. It distinguishes from siblings like zaim_create_payment (expenses) and zaim_create_transfer (transfers), but doesn't explicitly mention this distinction in the description text itself.

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 zaim_create_payment or zaim_create_transfer. It doesn't mention prerequisites, authentication requirements, or any context about when income recording is appropriate versus other financial operations.

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