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. It discloses the calculation type (income vs expense) and time window, but fails to indicate if this is read-only, what 'trend' format returns (daily aggregates? cumulative? rate of change?), or any rate limiting concerns. Minimal behavioral disclosure.

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 efficient sentence with zero waste. Front-loaded with action and resource. No redundant boilerplate.

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 single-parameter analytical tool where output schema exists (handling return value documentation). However, given zero annotations and zero schema coverage, the description could specify whether the trend returns time-series data or summary statistics to ensure complete agent understanding.

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?

Successfully compensates for 0% schema description coverage by referencing 'N days' in the description, clearly mapping to the 'days' parameter's purpose as a lookback window. Despite no schema documentation, the agent understands this parameter controls the historical timeframe.

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 specific resource (income vs expense trend) and scope (last N days), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_portfolio_history (asset values) or list_transactions (individual records). However, uses generic verb 'Get' rather than 'Retrieve' or 'Calculate', and could more explicitly contrast with cashflow analysis alternatives.

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 versus list_transactions or get_portfolio_history. No mention of prerequisites, filtering capabilities, or data freshness considerations. Agent must infer applicability from the name alone.

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