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. It states 'Updates', implying a mutation, but fails to mention critical details like required permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, error handling for invalid inputs, or side effects on related data. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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, direct sentence with no wasted words, efficiently conveying the core action. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, making it easy to parse without unnecessary elaboration.

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, and the tool being a mutation operation, the description is insufficient. It does not cover behavioral aspects like success responses, error formats, or impact on system state, leaving the agent with incomplete information for reliable invocation in a production context.

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 clear parameter descriptions in the schema (e.g., 'price_id' as 'The price ID'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters or usage examples. Since the schema handles documentation adequately, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Updates') and resource ('a price for a custom investment'), making the purpose evident. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_custom_investment' or 'create_custom_investment_price', which handle related but distinct operations on custom investments or their prices, leaving room for ambiguity in tool selection.

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 such as 'create_custom_investment_price' for new prices or 'delete_custom_investment_price' for removal. The description lacks context about prerequisites, error conditions, or typical scenarios, offering minimal assistance in decision-making.

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