get_research_reportOne asset's generated report. The unavailable field lists metrics
the report could NOT use — read it, because a report that silently omits
funding rate reads as a report about an asset with unremarkable funding.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations by disclosing the `unavailable` field and warning about silent omissions in the report. This is a specific, non-obvious behavior an agent should know. With readOnlyHint and idempotentHint already covering safety, this extra context about report completeness earns a 4.
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, both earn their place: the first states the core purpose, and the second explains a crucial output field. The warning about `unavailable` is slightly wordy but remains focused. Front-loaded enough for easy scanning.
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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and rich annotations, the description is adequate but has gaps. It does not describe the overall report structure or what fields an agent can expect beyond `unavailable`. An agent could call it correctly, but it may not know how to use the returned report without more schema or output documentation.
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 coverage is 0% and the description does not explain the `symbol` parameter at all. It only says 'One asset's,' which is a vague inference rather than explicit guidance on what format symbol should take (e.g., ticker, address). The parameter is left entirely to the schema's type string, adding no meaning.
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 'One asset's generated report' clearly identifies the tool as retrieving a single asset's report, distinguishing it from siblings like list_research_reports which presumably list multiple reports. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'fetch' and does not specify what kind of report (e.g., research vs. technical), relying on the title for that context.
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. It does not mention that list_research_reports is for browsing available reports or that other metric tools should be used for raw data. The mention of the 'unavailable' field is about interpreting output, not about selecting this tool over others.
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.