Corpus MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden but offers minimal behavioral context. It implies a mutation ("Add") but does not state whether duplicates are prevented, what currency/unit avg_price expects, what the output schema contains, or error behaviors for invalid symbols.

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 at two lines, but the structure is awkward—parameter documentation is appended as a second sentence rather than integrated naturally or omitted in favor of schema descriptions. Not inefficient, but could be better structured.

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 mutation tool with three required parameters. Despite having an output schema (reducing the need for return value explanation), the description fails to document two-thirds of required inputs and provides no operational context like idempotency or side effects.

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, yet the description only partially compensates by documenting `symbol` with a helpful example. It completely omits required parameters `quantity` (shares owned?) and `avg_price` (cost basis?), leaving critical input semantics undefined.

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?

Clearly states the action (Add) and resource (stock holding), identifying this as a portfolio position entry tool. However, it fails to explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling `add_stock_transaction`, which could confuse users about whether to record trades or current holdings here.

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 like `add_stock_transaction` or `update_stock_holding`. Missing prerequisites such as confirming the symbol exists via `search_stock_symbol` first, or whether this is for initial portfolio setup versus ongoing tracking.

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