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 a holding' implies a destructive, irreversible mutation, but it doesn't specify consequences (e.g., whether related data like portfolio holdings are affected), permissions required, error conditions, or what happens on success (e.g., no return value mentioned). This is inadequate 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 extremely concise with just two words ('Deletes a holding'), which is front-loaded and wastes no space. Every word earns its place by conveying the core action and resource without unnecessary elaboration.

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 complexity (destructive deletion with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks crucial context such as what 'holding' refers to in this domain, the impact of deletion, error handling, or confirmation requirements, making it insufficient for safe and effective use by an AI agent.

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 1 parameter with 100% description coverage ('The holding ID to delete'), so the schema fully documents the parameter. The description doesn't add any semantic details beyond this, but with 0 parameters needing extra explanation and high schema coverage, the baseline is 4 as it doesn't detract from the schema's clarity.

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 holding' clearly states the action (delete) and resource (holding), which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like delete_coupon_code, delete_coupon_rate, delete_custom_investment, or delete_custom_investment_price, all of which perform similar deletion operations on different resources.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing a holding_id from list_holdings or get_holding), when not to use it (e.g., for non-existent holdings), or explicit alternatives like update_holding for modifications instead of deletion.

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