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. It discloses the scope of returned data (net worth, assets, liabilities) but omits behavioral details such as data freshness, whether values are real-time or cached, or how liabilities are calculated against assets.

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 concise at seven words with front-loaded verb ('Get'). Every word serves a purpose: 'aggregated' signals high-level aggregation versus detail listings, while the three nouns define the specific financial metrics returned.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema (per context signals). The description identifies the key return categories, though it could strengthen completeness by indicating whether the summary spans all asset classes represented by the sibling 'add_*' tools.

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?

Input schema contains zero parameters, triggering the baseline score of 4. The description appropriately requires no parameter clarification.

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 states a clear retrieval purpose with specific outputs ('aggregated net worth, asset breakdown, and liabilities'), distinguishing it implicitly from sibling listing tools like list_stock_holdings through the 'aggregated' modifier. However, it lacks explicit differentiation from similar analytical siblings like get_portfolio_history or get_top_holdings.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this summary view versus detailed listing tools (list_*_holdings) or trend analysis (get_cashflow_trend). The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and description keywords.

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