Sharesight 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. 'Deletes' implies a destructive mutation, but the description doesn't specify whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., on related data like prices or holdings), or provides confirmation feedback. This is a significant gap for a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage.

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. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loaded with the core action, though its brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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 (a destructive deletion tool), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address critical aspects like behavioral traits (e.g., permanence, side effects), usage context, or return values, leaving the agent under-informed for safe and effective 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 description adds no parameter information beyond what the input schema provides. With 100% schema description coverage (the 'id' parameter is fully documented as 'The custom investment ID to delete'), the baseline is 3. The description doesn't compensate with additional context like ID format or sourcing.

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 'Deletes a custom investment' clearly states the verb (deletes) and resource (custom investment), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_coupon_code' or 'delete_holding' beyond the resource name, nor does it specify what constitutes a 'custom investment' in this context.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing custom investment), exclusions, or relationships with sibling tools like 'delete_custom_investment_price' or 'get_custom_investment', leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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