Marlo MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation ('Get') but does not specify permissions required, data freshness, rate limits, or what constitutes 'comprehensive' analysis. This leaves gaps in understanding the tool's behavior and constraints.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity of financial analysis, lack of annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is insufficient. It does not detail the scope of 'comprehensive' analysis, return format, or error handling, leaving significant gaps for effective tool use.

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 0%, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description mentions 'for a specific borrower company', which hints at the 'borrower_company_id' parameter but does not explain its format, source, or validation. This adds minimal semantic value, aligning with the baseline for low coverage without full compensation.

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 states the verb ('Get') and resource ('comprehensive financial analysis and loan details for a specific borrower company'), making the purpose explicit. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_company_valuation' or 'get_credit_score', which might also provide financial insights, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 prerequisites, such as needing a borrower company ID, or compare it to sibling tools like 'get_all_borrowers_summary_for_lender' for broader overviews versus detailed analysis here.

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