Import user-supplied option-chain data into a bearer-private interactive dashboard. Delete the artifacts after one hour.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rate | No | ||
| expiry | No | ||
| symbol | Yes | ||
| data_source | No | ||
| source_data | No | ||
| source_text | No | ||
| source_format | No | ||
| dividend_yield | No | ||
| rights_confirmed | No | ||
| retention_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?
Beyond the annotations (all false), the description discloses a meaningful retention/cleanup behavior ('Delete the artifacts after one hour') and the privacy-bound nature of the dashboard ('bearer-private'). It does not conflict with destructiveHint=false because the deletion is a post-import cleanup directive rather than the import operation itself, but it leaves the exact artifact scope unspecified.
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 short sentences with no filler; the main purpose is front-loaded and the cleanup instruction is a useful second sentence. Every word earns its place.
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 10 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no parameter explanations, the description is too thin. It covers the high-level purpose and one cleanup rule, but an agent would not know what to put in source_data, what rights_confirmed and retention_confirmed mean, or what the dashboard expects.
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% and the description provides no guidance on any of the 10 parameters, including the required 'symbol' or how to pass source data via 'source_data'/'source_text'/'source_format'. The only hint is 'user-supplied option-chain data', which is too generic to help an agent populate parameters correctly.
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 ('Import'), a specific resource ('user-supplied option-chain data'), and a destination ('bearer-private interactive dashboard'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling snapshot, plotting, and validation tools. It is immediately obvious this is the ingestion tool for user-provided chain 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 phrase 'user-supplied' clearly indicates the tool is for importing external chain data rather than fetching or computing it, giving the agent a clear selection context. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternative tools, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.