Finance Tools MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the analysis output format (latest value, average, trend direction, data points) which is valuable, but doesn't mention rate limits, data freshness, or error conditions. It adequately describes what the tool produces but lacks operational context.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter and return sections. Every sentence adds value: the first defines scope, the parameter explanation clarifies constraints, and the return details specify output content without redundancy.

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 single-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good coverage: it explains the tool's purpose, parameter meaning, and return format. The main gap is lack of explicit usage guidance versus siblings, but otherwise it's reasonably complete for its complexity.

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 schema has 0% description coverage (parameter 'days' has no description in schema), but the description compensates by explaining the parameter's purpose ('Number of days to analyze') and constraint ('limited by available data'). This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema type.

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 specific action ('Analyze trends') and resource ('CNN Fear & Greed Index') with temporal scope ('over specified days'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_historical_fng_tool' by emphasizing trend analysis rather than raw data retrieval.

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 implies usage for trend analysis of the Fear & Greed Index, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'get_historical_fng_tool' or 'get_overall_sentiment_tool'. The context is clear but lacks comparative direction.

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