Standard Metrics 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 mentions the tool fetches 'comprehensive portfolio summary' data but doesn't specify whether this is a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what happens with large datasets. The Args section adds some behavioral context (e.g., defaults, limits like 'up to 100'), but key operational traits are missing for a tool with 4 parameters.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, followed by a bullet-point-like Args section that efficiently documents parameters. There's no redundant information, and every sentence serves a purpose, though the formatting could be slightly more polished for front-loading.

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?

For a tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers parameter semantics thoroughly but lacks behavioral context (e.g., read/write nature, error handling) and output details. Given the complexity and absence of structured fields, it should provide more guidance on usage and results to be fully adequate.

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?

Given 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing detailed parameter semantics in the Args section. It explains each parameter's purpose, defaults, constraints (e.g., 'if None, includes all'), and limits ('up to 100'), adding significant value beyond the bare schema. This is essential since the schema lacks descriptions.

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: 'Get a comprehensive portfolio summary including companies, funds, and key metrics.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resources ('portfolio summary', 'companies, funds, and key metrics'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_companies' or 'get_company_financial_summary', which could provide overlapping 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. With multiple sibling tools like 'list_companies', 'get_company_financial_summary', and 'get_company_metrics', there's no indication of how this tool differs or when it's preferred. The Args section explains parameters but doesn't offer usage context or exclusions.

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