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 'retrieves' implying a read operation, but doesn't cover aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, 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 that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with zero waste, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'portfolio' entails, the return format, or error cases. For a tool with no structured data beyond the input schema, more context is needed to adequately inform an 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 schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('portfolio_id' and 'consolidated') fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining the effect of 'consolidated' or providing examples. 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 action ('retrieves') and resource ('a single portfolio by ID'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'list_portfolios' or 'get_holding', which also retrieve portfolio-related data, so it misses full sibling 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 such as 'list_portfolios' for multiple portfolios or 'get_holding' for specific holdings. It lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving usage unclear relative to siblings.

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