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 details on permissions, rate limits, data freshness, or output format. For a retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified, though it doesn't contradict anything.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for the simple action, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.

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 retrieval tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'splits' are, the return format, or behavioral aspects like data scope. This inadequately supports the agent in using the tool correctly.

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 mentions 'ticker' but adds no meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage and only defines 'ticker' as a string. No details on ticker format, examples, or constraints are provided. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the parameter poorly documented.

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 action ('Retrieves') and resource ('splits for the given ticker'), providing a basic purpose. However, it's vague about what 'splits' specifically refers to (e.g., stock splits, data splits) and doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'retrieve_dividends' or 'retrieve_stock_data', which might handle similar financial data. This meets the minimum viable threshold but lacks specificity.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., historical vs. current splits), or exclusions. Given siblings like 'retrieve_dividends' and 'retrieve_stock_data', the agent has no help in choosing between them, leading to potential misuse.

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