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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool plots data and returns an image, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, side effects (e.g., file creation), or error handling. The description doesn't contradict annotations (none exist), but it's insufficient for a tool that generates outputs without covering behavioral traits like resource usage or potential failures.

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, starting with the core purpose. The Args and Returns sections are structured clearly, with each sentence adding value (e.g., parameter explanations). There's minimal waste, though it could be slightly more concise by integrating defaults into the parameter descriptions more seamlessly.

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 (plotting with signals), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers parameters well and specifies the return format ('Dict with 'file_path' and 'base64''), but lacks behavioral context (e.g., how signals are generated, image format, or error cases). For a tool with no structured support, it's adequate but has clear gaps in operational guidance.

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 description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains 'prices' as a list of dicts with specific keys ('date', 'open', etc.), defines 'short_window' and 'long_window' for moving averages with defaults, and clarifies 'title' as the chart title. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it doesn't cover all potential nuances (e.g., data format validation).

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 price data with trading signals/opportunities.' It specifies the verb ('plots') and resource ('price data with trading signals/opportunities'), which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'mcp_plot_price_chart' or 'mcp_plot_comparison_chart', which likely have overlapping charting functionality.

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. It doesn't mention sibling tools or contexts where this specific plotting tool is preferred over others (e.g., 'mcp_plot_price_chart' or 'mcp_plot_comparison_chart'). Usage is implied only through the description of what it does, with no explicit when/when-not instructions or prerequisites.

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