Sharesight MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but provides minimal behavioral insight. It states 'Updates' implying mutation but doesn't disclose permission requirements, whether updates are partial or full, side effects, error conditions, or response format. For a mutation tool with 11 parameters, this leaves critical gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource. For a tool with comprehensive schema coverage, this brevity is appropriate and efficient.

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?

For a mutation tool with 11 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'update' entails (e.g., partial updates, validation rules), required permissions, error handling, or return values. The agent lacks context to use this tool effectively beyond basic parameter passing.

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 all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying 'id' is required for an existing investment. This meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't enhance understanding of parameter relationships or constraints.

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 an existing custom investment' clearly states the action (update) and resource (custom investment), but it's generic and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like update_coupon_rate or update_custom_investment_price. It specifies 'existing' which distinguishes from create_custom_investment, but lacks detail about what aspects can be updated.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing custom investment), compare to sibling tools like update_custom_investment_price, or specify use cases. The agent must infer usage from the name and parameters alone.

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