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 of behavioral disclosure. While '取得します' (get/retrieve) implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what the return format looks like (e.g., list structure, pagination). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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 description is a single, efficient sentence in Japanese that directly states the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the essential information without unnecessary elaboration.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is adequate as a basic statement of purpose. However, without annotations or output schema, it lacks details on authentication, response format, or error handling that would be helpful for an agent. It meets minimum viability but has clear gaps in contextual information.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (though empty). With no parameters to document, the description doesn't need to compensate for any gaps. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since there's nothing to explain beyond what's already covered by the schema (which indicates no inputs).

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 verb ('取得します' - get/retrieve) and resource ('Zaimユーザーの口座一覧' - Zaim user account list), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'zaim_get_user_info' or 'zaim_get_money_records' which also retrieve user-related data, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 like 'zaim_get_user_info' (which might include account info) and 'zaim_get_money_records' (which involves financial data), there's no indication of when this specific account-listing tool is appropriate or what distinguishes it from other retrieval operations.

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