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. While 'Updates' implies mutation, it doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, what happens to existing settings not mentioned, whether changes are reversible, or what the response looks like. The mention of 'DRP settings' provides some context about what gets modified, but lacks details about side effects, error conditions, or system 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 extremely concise - a single sentence that efficiently communicates the core functionality. It's front-loaded with the main action and resource, with the parenthetical adding useful scope information. There's zero wasted language or redundancy.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'holding' is in this context, what DRP stands for, what the expected response format is, or any error conditions. Given the complexity of updating financial holdings and the lack of structured metadata, the description should provide more context about the operation's behavior and outcomes.

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 all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond what's in the schema - it mentions 'DRP settings' which aligns with the 'enable_drp' and 'drp_mode_setting' parameters, but provides no additional semantic context about parameter relationships, constraints, or usage patterns beyond what the schema descriptions already state.

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 holding'), and specifies the scope of current functionality ('currently supports DRP settings'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'delete_holding' by focusing on updates rather than deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update tools like 'update_coupon_rate' or 'update_custom_investment' beyond the resource name.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing a holding ID), when not to use it, or how it differs from other update operations. With multiple sibling tools including 'get_holding' and 'list_holdings', there's no indication of when this update tool is appropriate versus those read operations.

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