Financial Analysis MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that metrics require specific financial statements (e.g., income_statement, balance_sheet) and mentions a return format example, but lacks critical behavioral details like error handling, data format expectations for financial_data, or computational assumptions. This is inadequate for a tool with complex inputs and no 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?

The description is moderately structured with a clear purpose statement, bulleted metric list, and parameter/return sections. However, it includes redundant or conflicting information (e.g., window parameter not in schema, return example that might mislead about output format). Some sentences could be more efficient, but it's not overly verbose.

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 tool's complexity (2 parameters with nested objects, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on financial_data structure, error cases, or how metrics are computed. The return example is minimal, and the mismatch with the schema (window parameter) adds confusion. More context is needed for reliable use.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds significant meaning: financial_data is a Dict with financial data, indicator is a str from supported metric names (listing 15 examples), and window is an int for window size (though window is not in the input schema, indicating a mismatch). This clarifies parameter purposes beyond the bare schema, but the schema-description inconsistency limits the score.

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 the tool calculates financial metrics from provided data, specifying the verb 'calculates' and resource 'financial metrics'. It lists 15 specific metrics, which helps distinguish it from siblings like mcp_calculate_growth_rates or mcp_calculate_technical_indicators, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like mcp_calculate_growth_rates or retrieve_financial_statements. The description implies usage by listing metrics and their data requirements but lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or prerequisites for the financial_data parameter.

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