Finance MCP

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full load. It usefully discloses cost ('FREE'), result ranking, and returned fields, but does not state whether the operation is strictly read-only, whether limits/pagination apply, or anything about caching or rate limits. Search implies non-mutating, but that is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Four short, front-loaded sentences. 'FREE' leads, followed by what it searches, what it returns, and the ordering directive. No sentence is wasted.

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 discovery tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essential return shape (id, summary, categories) and ordering guidance. Minor gaps remain around limit semantics and explicit read-only status, but an agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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 67%, so the schema already documents query and category well. The description adds meaningful illustrative examples for query ('BTC spot price', 'AAPL income statement', 'US CPI') that help the agent formulate effective searches. The limit parameter remains unexplained in both schema and description, preventing a 5.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search the finance tool catalog') and clearly describes the input (task description) and output (ranked tools with id, summary, categories). The examples and 'Call this first' make it easy to distinguish from the downstream finance_inspect and finance_run siblings.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent when to use it ('Call this first') and gives concrete query examples, which establishes it as the entry point before inspect/run. It does not explicitly name the alternatives or state when not to use it, but the sequencing guidance is clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it declares "FREE" (cost profile), lists what the response contains, and implies a read-only metadata lookup rather than an execution. It stops short of stating that the call has no side effects or any limit on how many inspections can be made, but the essentials are present.

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, no waste, and the cost signal "FREE" is front-loaded so an agent reading only the first token still learns something actionable. The workflow constraint follows immediately.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (input schema, output shape, cost, rate limits). Combined with the workflow placement, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly for a one-parameter metadata tool.

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 the single `id` parameter is already documented with its own example ("okx#ticker") in the schema. The description's "by id" adds nothing beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema fully documents the parameter.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (get the full contract of one tool by id) and enumerates exactly what the contract contains: input schema, output shape, cost, rate limits. This is clearly distinguishable from both finance_discover (find tools) and finance_run (execute 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?

Explicitly positions the tool in the workflow with "Call after finance_discover, before finance_run," naming both siblings and the ordering condition that selects this one. An agent needs no inference to know when to reach for it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that discover/inspect/run are free and that failed vendor calls return an error, but it says nothing about side effects, permissions, idempotency, success response, or whether executing a vendor tool can mutate external state.

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 three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by billing and failure context. Every sentence is relevant and there is no filler.

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?

This is a meta-execution tool with nested params, no annotations, and no output schema. The description does not explain what a successful call returns, what happens to the nested params, or what external side effects may occur, leaving important execution context missing.

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 100%, so the schema already explains that id comes from finance_discover and params are documented via finance_inspect. The description only restates 'by id with params' and adds no syntax, format, or validation detail beyond the schema.

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 states a specific action: execute a finance tool by id with params. It is clear enough to distinguish this as the execution endpoint alongside discover/inspect, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings in the description text.

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 implies use when you already have a tool id, and the schema ties id to finance_discover and params to finance_inspect. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use conditions, and no direct comparison to the sibling tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.