Local Stock Analyst MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the fallback computation behavior ('otherwise computes from candles'), which is useful context about reliability and data sources. However, it doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what the output format looks like.

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 only two sentences that both earn their place. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds valuable implementation context. There's zero waste or redundancy, and it's appropriately sized for this type of tool.

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 a technical indicator tool with 5 parameters (0% documented in schema), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It explains what RSI is and the computation approach but doesn't cover parameter meanings, output format, error conditions, or when to use versus alternatives. For a financial data tool with multiple parameters, this leaves significant gaps.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for 5 parameters, the description provides no information about any parameters. It doesn't explain what 'symbol', 'interval', 'from', 'to', or 'period' mean in the context of RSI calculation. The description mentions 'candles' which relates to parameters but doesn't explicitly connect to them or provide semantic meaning.

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 RSI (Relative Strength Index)' with the specific action 'get' and resource 'RSI'. It distinguishes from siblings like get_candles or get_macd by focusing on RSI specifically. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from all siblings (e.g., get_quote also retrieves financial data).

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. It mentions 'Uses provider RSI when available, otherwise computes from candles' which is an implementation detail, not usage guidance. There's no indication of when RSI is needed versus other indicators like MACD or basic price data from get_quote.

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