Finance Tools MCP

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 a critical limitation ('data is not always the latest'), which is valuable context beyond the basic operation. However, it lacks details on other behavioral traits such as error handling, response format, rate limits, or authentication needs, leaving significant gaps for a tool that fetches data.

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 two sentences with zero waste: the first states the core purpose, and the second adds a crucial caution. It is front-loaded with the main action and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. While it covers the basic purpose and a key limitation, it misses essential context such as return values, error conditions, and operational details. For a data retrieval tool with these gaps, more information is needed to be fully helpful.

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 input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the schema provides no semantic information. The description adds meaning by specifying that the parameter is a 'FRED series ID', which clarifies the purpose of 'series_id'. However, it doesn't elaborate on format, examples, or constraints, leaving the parameter only partially documented.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'FRED series by its ID', which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling 'search_fred_series' by focusing on retrieval by ID rather than search. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other data-fetching siblings like 'get_price_history' or 'get_ticker_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 includes a caution about data freshness ('not always the latest, so use with caution'), which implies usage context for when timeliness matters. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'search_fred_series' or other data retrieval tools, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions.

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