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 burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it says nothing about read-only safety, time range limitations, data granularity, or what the history records represent. The only behavioral cue is the verb 'Get' implying retrieval.

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?

While extremely brief (three words), the description is inappropriately concise—using minimal space to add no new information beyond the tool name. It is front-loaded but fails to earn its place by providing actionable context.

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?

Despite having zero parameters and an output schema (reducing description burden for return values), the description remains incomplete because it omits scope boundaries and sibling differentiation critical for a portfolio analysis tool with many related data retrieval siblings.

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?

The tool accepts zero parameters. Per evaluation rules, tools with zero parameters receive a baseline score of 4 for this dimension, as there are no parameter semantics to clarify beyond the empty schema.

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 'Get portfolio history' is tautological, essentially restating the tool name with spaces added. It fails to specify what 'history' encompasses (e.g., historical valuations, transaction logs, or performance snapshots) and does not differentiate from siblings like get_portfolio_summary or get_cashflow_trend.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not indicate temporal constraints, whether to use this for analysis vs. reporting, or how it relates to get_portfolio_summary.

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