Financial Analysis MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action is a retrieval but doesn't cover critical aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness, error handling, or response format details beyond 'JSON-serializable dict'. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with external data sources.

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 core purpose in the first sentence. The Args and Returns sections are structured but slightly verbose for a single parameter; every sentence earns its place, though minor trimming could improve efficiency.

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 (financial data retrieval with no annotations or output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'related info' includes in the return, potential errors, data sources, or limitations, making it inadequate for reliable agent use in this context.

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 meaningful context for the single parameter 'ticker', explaining it's 'the ticker symbol of the stock to retrieve the current price for'. With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this adequately compensates, though it doesn't specify format constraints (e.g., case sensitivity, exchange prefixes).

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 specific action ('Retrieves') and resource ('current price for the given ticker'), distinguishing it from siblings like retrieve_dividends or retrieve_financial_statements. It precisely identifies what the tool does without being vague or tautological.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like retrieve_stock_data or retrieve_ticker_info. The description lacks context about use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no direction on tool selection.

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