MCP Avantage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Parabolic SAR' gives no information about what the tool actually does, whether it performs calculations, retrieves data, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what format/scope the output might have. This leaves the agent completely in the dark about the tool's behavior.

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 technically concise with just two words, this is a case of harmful under-specification rather than effective brevity. The description fails to provide any meaningful information that would help an agent understand or use the tool, making it structurally deficient despite its short length.

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?

For a technical indicator tool with no annotations, no output schema, and numerous similar sibling tools, the description 'Parabolic SAR' is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool calculates/returns, when to use it, or how it differs from other indicators, leaving critical gaps in understanding for an AI agent.

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 100%, so the input schema already fully documents all 4 parameters. The description adds zero additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no parameter information in the description.

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 'Parabolic SAR' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without explaining what it does. It doesn't specify the action (e.g., 'calculate', 'retrieve', 'analyze') or the resource involved, nor does it differentiate this technical indicator from the many sibling technical indicator tools listed.

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 absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With over 40 sibling technical indicator tools (e.g., technicalIndicators_sma, technicalIndicators_ema, technicalIndicators_bbands), there's no indication of what makes Parabolic SAR unique or when it's appropriate to select it.

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