Zmiana profilu inwestora.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| about | No | Free-form self-description, ≤2000 chars. | |
| confirmed | No | false/omitted = preview only, no profile write. true = consume a matching, non-expired preview and persist exactly its fields once; otherwise refuse. | |
| constraints | No | Constraints / no-go list, ≤2000 chars. | |
| tradingStyle | No | ||
| riskTolerance | No | ||
| defaultHorizonMonths | No | 1..120. Investment horizon in months. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description does not disclose the crucial two-phase behavior: calling with confirmed=false only previews changes, and confirmed=true persists only after consuming a matching preview. This is a significant behavioral trait beyond the readOnlyHint=false annotation, and the description adds no value in this area.
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 a single short sentence, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It lacks necessary context and structure, making it unhelpful for an agent deciding whether and how to call the tool.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (6 optional parameters, a preview/commit mechanism, no output schema), the description is drastically incomplete. It fails to mention the confirmed parameter's semantics, the requirement for a matching preview, or any return value expectations, leaving the agent with almost no guidance.
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% (4 of 6 parameters have descriptions). The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies. The two enum parameters lack descriptions but the enum values are self-explanatory.
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 'Zmiana profilu inwestora' (Change investor profile) states a verb and resource, but it is extremely generic and does not specify what aspects of the profile are modified or how it differs from sibling tools like modify_holdings or modify_watchlist. It is not a tautology but provides minimal purpose differentiation.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor any mention of the preview/commit workflow (confirmed=false vs true). The agent is left to infer usage from the parameter names alone, which is insufficient for correct invocation.
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.