Summarize SYNTH or analyze a user-supplied option chain for private analysis. This service never fetches market data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rate | No | ||
| expiry | No | ||
| symbol | No | SYNTH | |
| data_source | No | ||
| source_data | No | ||
| source_text | No | ||
| source_format | No | ||
| dividend_yield | No | ||
| rights_confirmed | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable context by explicitly stating it never fetches market data and frames the operation as private analysis, which clarifies data handling beyond the annotations. No contradiction with annotations.
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?
Two sentences with no filler. The primary function and the key constraint are front-loaded, making the description easy to parse quickly.
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 tool with 9 parameters, zero schema coverage, and no parameter descriptions, the description is too thin. It does not explain how to supply the option chain, what 'Summarize SYNTH' means, or how the parameters relate to each other. The output schema helps with return values, but the input side remains largely unexplained.
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 0%, so the description must compensate for 9 undocumented parameters, but it does not. It only hints that 'user-supplied option chain' relates to source_data/source_text without explaining rate, expiry, source_format, dividend_yield, or rights_confirmed. This leaves the agent with almost no semantic guidance for filling parameters.
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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Summarize SYNTH or analyze a user-supplied option chain.' It also adds a distinguishing constraint, 'never fetches market data,' which helps separate it from market-data tools. However, 'Summarize SYNTH' is slightly cryptic and does not fully clarify what SYNTH represents.
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 phrase 'for private analysis' and the explicit 'never fetches market data' imply the tool is for user-supplied or synthetic data rather than live market retrieval. No sibling alternatives are named, and there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance beyond that.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.