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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves news headlines but doesn't mention critical traits like whether it's read-only, if there are rate limits, authentication needs, pagination, or error handling. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency, as it omits essential operational details.

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 and front-loaded, consisting of a single sentence that directly states the tool's function. There is no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.

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 of a 4-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, parameter meanings beyond dates, and expected outputs. For a tool that likely returns structured news data, this leaves the agent with insufficient context to use it effectively without additional assumptions.

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 semantic value beyond the input schema. It implies date parameters ('within a date window (YYYY-MM-DD)') but doesn't explain the 'symbol' or 'limit' parameters. With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by hinting at date usage, but it doesn't fully address the four parameters, leaving gaps in understanding their roles and constraints.

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 stock news headlines within a date window (YYYY-MM-DD).' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('stock news headlines'), and scope ('within a date window'), which is clear and specific. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_quote or get_company_profile, which might also provide news-related data, so it doesn't reach a perfect score.

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 a date window but doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. For example, it doesn't indicate if this is for recent news only or if there are limitations compared to siblings like get_company_profile. This lack of context leaves the agent without clear usage direction.

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