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 the full burden. It discloses that the tool generates a plot and returns a dict with file details, which is useful. However, it lacks behavioral details like whether it saves files automatically, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or handles errors. The description doesn't contradict annotations, but it's insufficient for a mutation tool with no annotation coverage.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the purpose stated first, followed by a bullet-like list of parameters and returns. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, 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 no annotations, no output schema, and nested objects in the input schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks details on behavioral traits, error handling, or output structure beyond a brief mention. For a tool with 4 parameters and mutation potential (plotting/saving), it should do more to compensate for the missing structured data.

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 meaningful semantics by explaining each parameter: 'dates' as 'List of date strings,' 'series' as 'Dict where keys are labels and values are lists of values for each date,' 'title' as 'Chart title,' and 'filename' as 'Optional filename to save the plot.' This clarifies the structure and purpose beyond the bare schema, though it could detail formats (e.g., date format) more.

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's purpose: 'Plots a comparison chart for multiple tickers or financial metrics over time.' It specifies the verb ('Plots') and resource ('comparison chart'), and distinguishes from siblings like mcp_plot_price_chart by mentioning 'multiple tickers or financial metrics.' However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from mcp_plot_financial_metric, which might also handle multiple metrics, making it slightly less specific.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like mcp_plot_price_chart and mcp_plot_financial_metric, it's unclear when this tool is preferred, such as for comparing multiple series versus single series. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage context implied at best.

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