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 what data is returned (three specific indicators) and the return format (formatted string), which is helpful. However, it doesn't mention behavioral aspects like data freshness, rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions that would be important for a financial data tool.

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 a bulleted list of indicators and a returns section. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy. The formatting with bullet points enhances readability.

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 tool with no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate coverage of what the tool does and what it returns. However, it lacks important context about data sources, update frequency, and potential limitations that would help an agent use it effectively in financial analysis scenarios.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, and instead focuses on what the tool returns, which adds value beyond the empty schema.

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 comprehensive market sentiment indicators' and lists three specific indicators (CNN Fear & Greed Index, Market RSI, VIX). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_historical_fng_tool' by focusing on current comprehensive sentiment rather than historical data. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all relevant siblings like 'analyze_fng_trend'.

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 doesn't mention when this comprehensive sentiment view is preferable over individual indicators from siblings like 'get_historical_fng_tool' or 'analyze_fng_trend', nor does it specify any prerequisites or exclusions for usage.

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