Local Stock Analyst MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the fallback computation method ('computes from candles'), which adds some behavioral context. However, it lacks critical details: whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or what the output format looks like. For a 7-parameter tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.

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—two short sentences with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('Get MACD indicator values') followed by implementation detail. Every sentence earns its place by adding value about the tool's behavior.

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 (7 parameters, technical indicator calculation), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain parameter meanings, output format, error handling, or usage constraints. For a tool that likely returns numerical time-series data, more context is needed for effective agent use.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. The description mentions 'MACD indicator values' and the computation method but doesn't explain any of the 7 parameters (symbol, interval, from, to, fastPeriod, slowPeriod, signalPeriod) or their roles in MACD calculation. It fails to add meaningful semantics beyond what the bare schema provides.

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 MACD indicator values' specifies the verb (get) and resource (MACD indicator values). It distinguishes from siblings like get_candles or get_rsi by focusing on MACD specifically. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with get_rsi (another technical indicator tool) beyond mentioning MACD.

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 implied usage context: 'Uses provider MACD when available, otherwise computes from candles' suggests this tool should be used for MACD calculations, with a fallback method. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like get_rsi or get_candles for similar analysis, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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