NOUZ MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It successfully explains the directional flow (bottom-up) and hierarchical processing levels, but fails to disclose safety profile (destructive vs. safe), idempotency, or what the operation returns given no output schema exists.

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?

Extremely efficient two-sentence structure: first sentence defines the operation and algorithm, second defines prerequisites. Zero redundancy; every clause conveys essential workflow or behavioral information.

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?

Adequate for a zero-parameter tool, explaining the internal calculation hierarchy (quants/modules/patterns) and prerequisites. However, significant gaps remain regarding return values, side effects, and success/failure indicators given the absence of both output schema and annotations.

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?

Input schema contains zero parameters, establishing a baseline of 4. The description appropriately does not fabricate parameter semantics where none exist.

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 specific action (recalculate), target resource (core_mix), and method (bottom-up aggregation through L4→L3→L2). It effectively distinguishes from sibling 'recalc_signs' by implying different calculation targets and hierarchies.

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?

Explicitly states workflow prerequisites: 'Run after index_all with embeddings or after recalc_signs.' This provides clear sequencing context, though it lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance or alternative tool comparisons.

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