Sharesight MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'creates' which implies a write operation, but doesn't mention required permissions, whether it's idempotent, what happens on conflicts (e.g., duplicate codes), or the response format. For a 12-parameter creation tool, this is a significant gap 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, efficient sentence with zero waste—'Creates a new custom investment' is front-loaded and appropriately sized for its purpose. Every word earns its place, 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 (12 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the tool's behavior, error conditions, or return values, leaving the agent to rely solely on the input schema. For a creation tool with many parameters, more context is needed to ensure correct usage.

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 fully documents all 12 parameters with clear descriptions and constraints (e.g., FIXED_INTEREST-only fields). The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without extra value.

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 'Creates a new custom investment' clearly states the verb ('creates') and resource ('custom investment'), but it's vague about what constitutes a 'custom investment' and doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'create_custom_investment_price' or 'update_custom_investment'. It's adequate but lacks specificity about the investment creation scope.

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 like 'update_custom_investment' or 'list_custom_investments'. There's no mention of prerequisites, such as needing a portfolio context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the schema alone.

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