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 the action is a deletion, implying a destructive mutation, but fails to mention critical details like whether this operation is irreversible, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., on associated investments), or returns confirmation data. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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, direct sentence with no unnecessary words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It efficiently communicates the core action without redundancy or fluff, earning full marks for brevity and clarity in structure.

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 destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral details (e.g., irreversibility, permissions), usage context, and information on return values or errors. While concise, it doesn't compensate for the missing structured data, leaving the agent with insufficient guidance 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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'price_id' documented as 'The price ID to delete'. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond this, such as how to obtain a price_id or format requirements. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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 action ('Deletes') and the resource ('a price for a custom investment'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling deletion tools like delete_coupon_code or delete_custom_investment, which would require mentioning the specific resource type to achieve full differentiation.

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 prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing price_id), exclusions, or related tools like list_custom_investment_prices for finding IDs or update_custom_investment_price for modifications, leaving usage context unclear.

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