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 but offers no information beyond the basic action. It does not address permissions, side effects, error conditions, rate limits, or what happens upon successful update, making it inadequate for a mutation 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 a single sentence that directly states the tool's action. It is front-loaded and wastes no words, though this brevity contributes to its informational deficiencies rather than being a strength of clarity.

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 as a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain behavioral traits, usage context, or return values, leaving critical gaps for an AI agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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%, with clear descriptions for all three parameters (id, interest_rate, date). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage without compensating value.

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 'Updates a coupon rate' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. It specifies the verb ('Updates') and resource ('a coupon rate') but lacks differentiation from sibling tools like 'create_coupon_rate' or 'delete_coupon_rate', failing to clarify what distinguishes this update operation from creation or deletion.

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 does not mention prerequisites (e.g., an existing coupon rate ID), exclusions, or contextual cues, leaving the agent without direction on appropriate usage scenarios compared to siblings like 'list_coupon_rates' or 'create_coupon_rate'.

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