MCP Avantage

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 that this is a 'Premium endpoint' (implying possible authentication or rate limits) and 'requires intraday interval' (a specific constraint). However, it doesn't mention other behavioral traits like response format details, error handling, or whether it's a read-only operation, leaving gaps in transparency.

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?

The description is extremely concise and front-loaded: two brief sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and key constraint. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 the complexity (a technical indicator with 4 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally complete. It covers the core purpose and a key constraint but lacks details on output format, error cases, or deeper behavioral context. It's adequate but leaves clear gaps for an agent to infer usage fully.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain how 'interval' relates to 'intraday' or provide examples for 'month'). This meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 clearly states what the tool does: 'Volume Weighted Average Price (VWAP)' specifies the exact technical indicator, and 'Premium endpoint, requires intraday interval' adds context about access and interval requirements. It distinguishes from siblings by naming VWAP specifically, but doesn't explicitly contrast with other technical indicators like SMA or EMA.

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 implied usage guidance: 'requires intraday interval' suggests when to use this tool (for intraday data) and potentially when not to use it (for non-intraday intervals). However, it doesn't explicitly state alternatives (e.g., other technical indicators for different purposes) or provide clear exclusions, leaving some ambiguity.

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