Corpus MCP Server

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It fails to clarify what defines 'top' (highest market value? largest position?), whether results span all asset types (stocks, gold, emergency funds), or read-only safety. It also doesn't mention the return format despite having an output schema.

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 four words with no redundancy, but underspecified given the zero schema coverage and ambiguous scope. Every word earns its place, but the sentence count is insufficient for the information gaps.

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?

Given 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description must compensate by explaining the holdings scope and parameter usage. It fails to do either, leaving critical operational context undefined despite having an output schema to handle return value documentation.

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 description coverage is 0% (the 'limit' parameter has no description), yet the description fails to mention or explain this parameter. Complete failure to document the tool's only argument.

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 basic action (Get) and target (top holdings) with sorting criteria (by value), but fails to define which asset types 'holdings' encompasses or distinguish from sibling list_* tools (list_stock_holdings, list_gold_holdings, etc.) that appear to list specific asset types individually.

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 aggregated view versus the specific listing tools, nor any prerequisites or conditions for invocation.

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