Corpus MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but only reveals the date format constraint. It fails to disclose mutation side effects (does it update portfolio totals automatically?), idempotency behavior, error scenarios (duplicate handling), or what the output schema represents despite having an output schema available.

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 brief (two lines) with the core purpose front-loaded. However, the second line awkwardly embeds parameter schema documentation into the main description rather than using structured schema descriptions, slightly hurting 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?

Inadequate for a financial mutation operation with three undocumented parameters. Missing: currency expectations, market data source implications, relationships to sibling tools like list_gold_holdings or delete_gold_holding, and error handling context. Relies entirely on external schema for return values.

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 has 0% description coverage, requiring the description to compensate. It only partially documents one parameter (purchase_date format) while leaving weight_grams (units? total?) and purchase_price (total vs per gram? currency?) completely unexplained, which is critical ambiguity for a financial instrument.

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?

States a clear verb ('Add') and resource ('gold holding'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_stock_holding and add_emergency_fund_contribution by specifying the asset type. However, it lacks scope specificity (e.g., whether this creates a new entry or updates existing).

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to add vs. update), nor any business logic prerequisites. The only usage-related information is the date format hint, which is parameter documentation rather than usage guidance.

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