Finance 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 mentions 'retrieves and formats web page content,' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't specify details like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, formatting specifics, or whether it follows redirects. For a web crawling tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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: 'Web content parsing tool: retrieves and formats web page content based on the provided URL.' It is front-loaded with the tool's purpose and contains no redundant information, making it appropriately sized and easy to parse.

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 web crawling (e.g., handling different content types, errors, or formatting) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'formats' entails, what content is returned, or any behavioral constraints. For a tool with no structured data beyond a basic input schema, more context is needed to ensure reliable 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'url' parameter documented as 'the provided URL.' The description adds minimal value beyond this, only implying the URL is used to fetch content. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond what the schema provides.

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 tool's purpose: 'retrieves and formats web page content based on the provided URL.' It specifies the verb ('retrieves and formats'), resource ('web page content'), and mechanism ('based on the provided URL'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'dashscope_search' or 'tavily_search', which might also retrieve web content through different mechanisms.

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 doesn't mention when to choose 'crawl_url' over sibling tools like 'dashscope_search' or 'tavily_search', nor does it specify prerequisites, exclusions, or optimal use cases. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone.

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