The ranked lists ETFIQ publishes, or one of them. Each ranks ONE published figure inside a stated set: the cheapest funds in a theme, the leveraged funds furthest from their stated multiple, the buffer funds closest to their cap. Call with no argument for the list.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | No | ||
| limit | No |
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, so safety is covered. The description adds that each ranking is 'ONE published figure inside a stated set,' which clarifies the nature of the data, but it does not describe output structure, pagination, or error behavior. Given the annotations cover the risk profile, a 3 is fair.
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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by examples and a call pattern. It avoids unnecessary filler, but the sentence 'The ranked lists ETFIQ publishes, or one of them' is slightly awkward and could be more direct. Overall, efficient.
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?
With two optional parameters and no output schema, the description must fully explain how to invoke the tool. It only covers the no-argument case, leaving slug and limit undefined. An agent would not know how to request a specific ranking or cap results. Incomplete for real usage.
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 explain parameters. It only mentions that calling with no argument returns the list, but it never defines 'slug' or 'limit.' An agent cannot infer what values to use or what they control. This is a critical gap.
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 function: it returns ranked lists published by ETFIQ, each ranking a single figure (cheapest funds, leveraged funds, buffer funds). This is specific and distinct from siblings like etf_holders or etf_profile. Examples reinforce the concept without ambiguity.
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 explicitly mentions one usage pattern: 'Call with no argument for the list.' However, it does not explain when to use this tool versus siblings, nor does it provide conditions for passing arguments (slug, limit) or any exclusions. The 'no argument' hint is useful but incomplete.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.