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 only states the action ('retrieves') without detailing traits like whether it's a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, returns historical or real-time data, or what format the output takes. This is inadequate for a 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 extremely concise with a single sentence, front-loaded and without any wasted words. It directly states the tool's purpose, making it efficient in structure, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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 financial data retrieval tool), lack of annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'dividends' entails (e.g., dividend history, yields, dates), return values, or error handling, leaving significant gaps for the agent to understand the tool 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 description adds minimal meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% coverage. It mentions 'for the given ticker', implying the 'ticker' parameter, but doesn't specify format (e.g., stock symbol conventions), constraints, or examples. With low schema coverage, the description doesn't fully compensate, but it at least hints at the parameter's role.

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 states the tool's purpose ('Retrieves dividends for the given ticker'), which is clear but vague. It specifies the verb ('retrieves') and resource ('dividends'), but doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'retrieve_stock_data' or 'retrieve_financial_statements', leaving ambiguity about what exactly is being retrieved.

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. The description doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, such as whether it's for historical or current dividends, or how it differs from other retrieval tools in the server. This leaves the agent without clear usage instructions.

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