Finance Tools 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 data ('Get'), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns real-time or historical data, or details the format of 'changes' (e.g., percentage, absolute values). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 a single, efficient sentence: 'Get top 25 institutional holders and their changes for a given stock ticker.' It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no unnecessary words or redundancy. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 (financial data retrieval), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'changes' entail, the data source, update frequency, or error handling. For a tool that likely returns structured financial data, more context is needed to use it effectively without trial and error.

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 one parameter ('ticker') with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no semantic details. The description adds value by clarifying that 'ticker' refers to a 'stock ticker', which is useful context. However, it doesn't elaborate on format constraints (e.g., uppercase, validation) or examples, so it only partially compensates for the low schema coverage.

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 top 25 institutional holders and their changes for a given stock ticker.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('top 25 institutional holders and their changes'), and scope ('for a given stock ticker'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_ticker_data' or 'get_financial_statements', which might also provide holder-related information.

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 prerequisites, exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools such as 'get_ticker_data' or 'get_financial_statements' that might offer similar or overlapping functionality. The user is left to infer usage based on the name and description alone.

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