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. It mentions retrieval and optional filtering, but fails to disclose critical behaviors such as pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or the format of the returned list. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to use the tool effectively.

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 and briefly mentions optional features. There is no redundant information or unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 covers the basic purpose and parameters but omits essential details like return format, error conditions, and behavioral traits (e.g., whether it's read-only, safe to use). For a tool with no structured safety or output information, this leaves the agent under-informed.

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 already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by mentioning the optional filters ('consolidated view or instrument'), but does not provide additional context, examples, or clarifications beyond what the schema specifies, aligning with the baseline for high coverage.

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 verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('list of the user's portfolios'), making the purpose evident. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_portfolio' or 'list_portfolio_holdings', which might retrieve specific portfolio details or holdings instead of a list of portfolios.

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 implies usage by mentioning optional filters ('consolidated view or instrument'), suggesting when to use these parameters. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'get_portfolio' for single portfolios or 'list_holdings' for holdings, and does not specify prerequisites or exclusions.

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