snacs_dilution_getForensic dilution snapshot for a ticker: share counts, facility capacity, runway, and dilution risk state extracted from SEC filings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ticker | Yes | U.S. ticker symbol, e.g. GPUS. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context about the data source (SEC filings) and the forensic nature, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as whether the snapshot reflects the latest filing, any latency, or how the risk state is computed. Some value added, but not extensive.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and lists key output components. No redundant or filler words. It earns its place with every word contributing to understanding.
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 that an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values. The tool has a simple input (ticker) and the description lists the key data fields. However, it does not clarify the distinction from snacs_dilution_asof_get, which could be a contextual gap for an agent choosing between them. Otherwise, the description is adequate for a read-only snapshot 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?
The input schema covers 100% of the single parameter (ticker) with a clear description. The tool description merely repeats 'for a ticker' without adding new meaning. With schema description coverage high, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; no extra semantic detail is provided.
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 identifies the tool as a dilution snapshot for a ticker, listing specific data elements (share counts, facility capacity, runway, dilution risk state) and the data source (SEC filings). However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool snacs_dilution_asof_get, which also appears dilution-focused, so it lacks full sibling distinction.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions 'Forensic' and 'SEC filings', implying current/fundamental data, but does not state exclusions or point to sibling tools like snacs_dilution_asof_get for historical/as-of queries. The agent is left without clear selection criteria.
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.