Corpus MCP Server

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

No annotations provided, yet the description fails to disclose mutation semantics: whether update is partial or full replacement, idempotency behavior, or error conditions if the holding_id does not exist.

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 is concise but underspecified; with four required parameters and a mutation operation, the brevity fails to front-load critical behavioral context, rendering the sentence insufficiently informative.

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 an output schema (reducing the need to document returns), the description inadequately covers a complex financial mutation: zero parameter documentation, no annotation coverage, and missing relationship to transaction-based workflows makes this incomplete.

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% (holding_id, symbol, quantity, avg_price all lack descriptions), and the tool description offers no compensation—it does not clarify that avg_price represents cost basis, whether quantity is total shares, or that holding_id must reference an existing record.

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 a clear verb and resource ('Update an existing stock holding') but lacks scope differentiation from sibling tool add_stock_transaction, leaving ambiguity whether this modifies holdings directly or through transaction records.

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 add_stock_transaction (which likely represents the transactional flow), nor prerequisites like verifying the holding_id exists via list_stock_holdings.

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