Zaim API MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool retrieves records with filtering but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires authentication (implied by sibling tools with auth), rate limits, pagination behavior (though schema hints at it), or what happens when no records match. The description is minimal and lacks critical operational context.

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 two concise sentences in Japanese, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by filtering capabilities. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a tool with 6 parameters for retrieving financial records, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on authentication requirements, error handling, response format, and how filtering interacts (e.g., AND/OR logic). For a data retrieval tool in a household accounting context, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by mentioning filtering by date range, category, and mode, but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., explaining relationships between parameters). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Zaim家計簿の支出・収入・振替記録を取得します' (retrieves expenditure, income, and transfer records from Zaim household accounting). It specifies the verb '取得します' (retrieves) and resource '記録' (records), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like zaim_get_user_categories or zaim_get_user_info that also retrieve data.

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 mentions filtering capabilities ('日付範囲、カテゴリ、モードでフィルタリング可能です'), which implies usage context for retrieving filtered records. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like zaim_get_user_categories for category data or zaim_get_user_info for user information.

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