Text-search NorthPoint's signal feed (dated ESMA MiCA CASP register changes + NorthPoint's regulations change record) for an entity name, LEI, competent authority, member state or keyword.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | Lookback window in days (default 30, max 365). | |
| query | Yes | Free-text query — matches title, body, subject, tags. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the composition of the feed (dated ESMA MiCA CASP register changes plus a change record), which is genuine behavioral context. It is silent on result limits, ordering, pagination, or how matching works beyond the field list, leaving meaningful gaps for a search tool with zero annotation coverage.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with the resource identified first and the searchable key types trailing; no filler, no restatement of the tool name, and nothing that could be cut without losing information.
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 two-parameter read tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers the essential 'what and where' a caller needs. The remaining gap is the shape of the returned signals and result-size behavior, which is a modest omission rather than a blocker.
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 100% and both parameters are documented, including the default and max for 'days', so the baseline is a 3. The description does add a useful framing—that the query can target an entity name, LEI, competent authority, member state, or keyword—but this overlaps heavily with the schema's own 'matches title, body, subject, tags' note.
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?
Uses a specific verb ('Text-search') on a named resource ('NorthPoint's signal feed') and enumerates the underlying data (ESMA MiCA CASP register changes + regulations change record). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling get_latest_signal and list_rule_changes, though the description never explicitly contrasts with them.
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?
Usage is implied by the enumerated lookup keys (entity name, LEI, competent authority, member state, keyword), which tells an agent when this tool fits. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance and no named alternative for the cases covered by get_latest_signal or list_rule_changes.
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.
