Corpus MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden but only reveals that transaction_type accepts BUY or SELL. It fails to disclose validation rules (e.g., date formats), currency assumptions, side effects on portfolio calculations, or what the output schema contains.

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?

Single sentence contains a typo ('holdind') and awkward construction ('stock holdind transaction_type:') that hurts readability. While brief, the lack of punctuation between clauses and the typographical error reduce clarity rather than support it.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations. The description ignores the existing output schema, omits validation constraints for required fields, and fails to explain failure modes or data consistency requirements (e.g., symbol/holding_id mismatch handling).

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description minimally compensates by documenting the BUY/SELL enum constraint for transaction_type. However, it leaves 6 other parameters unexplained, including critical semantics like the relationship between symbol and holding_id, date format expectations, or currency units for price_per_share.

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 the core action ('Add a new transaction') and resource ('stock holding'), though contains a typo ('holdind'). It distinguishes from siblings like add_gold_holding by mentioning 'stock', but fails to differentiate from the generic 'add_transaction' sibling.

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 the generic 'add_transaction' sibling, nor prerequisites like whether the holding_id must exist beforehand. No exclusion criteria or alternatives mentioned.

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