CSE MCP Server

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. While it states the tool retrieves a 'normalized stock quote' and lists data fields, it doesn't cover critical behavioral aspects such as rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or whether the data is real-time or delayed. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in transparency.

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 efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, scope, and included data fields without any redundant or unnecessary information. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every element serving a clear purpose in helping the agent understand 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 moderate complexity (single parameter, read operation) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is partially complete. It covers the basic purpose and data fields but misses behavioral details like response format, error cases, or performance characteristics. For a tool with no output schema, more information about return values would be beneficial, though the listed data fields provide some 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 description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'symbol' fully documented in the schema (including type, constraints, and example). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by specifying 'CSE symbol' and implying it's for a single symbol, but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or usage context that isn't already covered in the structured schema.

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 a normalized stock quote') and resource ('for a single CSE symbol'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_index_summary or get_market_summary by focusing on individual stock data. It explicitly lists the included data fields (price movement, volume, turnover, market cap, beta values), making the purpose highly specific and differentiated.

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 implies usage for retrieving detailed quote data for a single CSE symbol, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_company or get_top_gainers. It mentions the symbol type (CSE) which offers some context, but lacks clear when/when-not instructions or named alternatives for different use cases.

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