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. It states the tool returns data points for visualization, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or the format of returned data (e.g., time-series structure). For a tool with 7 parameters and no annotations, this is insufficient.

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 that front-loads the core purpose ('Returns performance index chart data points') and adds context ('for visualizing portfolio performance over time'). Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 (7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It specifies the tool's purpose and visualization context but lacks details on behavioral traits, usage guidelines, and output format. With no annotations to cover safety or behavior, the description should do more to compensate.

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 7 parameters with descriptions and constraints (e.g., date formats, grouping options). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying the tool returns time-series data for visualization, which is already suggested by the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('performance index chart data points'), and specifies the visualization context ('for visualizing portfolio performance over time'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_performance_report' or 'get_portfolio', which might also provide performance-related data.

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 sibling tools like 'get_performance_report' or 'get_portfolio', nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the name and description alone.

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