Derive MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions efficiency characteristics (bulk query optimization) which is valuable context, but doesn't describe response format, rate limits, error conditions, or whether this is a read-only operation. It provides some behavioral insight but leaves significant gaps.

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 perfectly efficient sentences with zero waste. The first establishes core functionality, the second provides crucial comparative guidance. Every word earns its place, and the most important information (purpose and when to use) is front-loaded.

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 read operation with 2 optional parameters and 100% schema coverage but no output schema, the description provides good purpose and usage guidance but lacks information about return format, pagination, or error handling. The sibling comparison is excellent, but without annotations or output schema, more behavioral context would be helpful.

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 fully documents both parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It mentions querying 'multiple instruments' which implies the tool returns data for multiple items, but doesn't clarify parameter usage or relationships.

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 specific action ('Get ticker information') and resource ('multiple instruments at once'), and explicitly distinguishes it from its sibling tool 'get_ticker' by highlighting efficiency advantages for bulk queries. This provides perfect differentiation from alternatives.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its sibling: 'More efficient than get_ticker when querying many instruments.' This clearly indicates the optimal use case and names the alternative tool, giving the agent perfect decision-making context.

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