Midas-MCP

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description adds value by disclosing the fuzzy symbol search behavior and the need to check exactMatch and name fields. It also enumerates the returned data categories, which is beyond the annotations.

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 well-structured paragraph that front-loads the core purpose and then provides detailed examples. It is not overly verbose and every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise.

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 output schema, the description thoroughly covers the return content for different instrument types and mentions fuzzy search. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly, though it doesn't address error handling or not-found cases.

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 single parameter symbol is fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds meaning by stating that search is fuzzy and that exactMatch and name fields should be checked, which is not in the 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 it returns asset identifying info, current price, and Atlas statistics, with specific details for funds and stocks. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_asset_price and get_technicals by covering comprehensive info.

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 comprehensive asset info but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_asset_price. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, leaving the choice to the agent's inference.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds context by specifying exactly what data will be returned (price, previous close, % change, market open status), which is useful beyond the annotations. No contradiction with annotations.

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 that front-loads the primary output (last transaction price) and then lists supporting fields. There is zero redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully covers the return payload: price, previous close, percentage change, and session open status. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both 'symbol' and 'currency' already documented with examples and conversion instructions. The tool description adds no parameter-specific detail, so baseline 3 is appropriate—the schema carries the burden.

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 returns the last transaction price along with previous close, percentage change, and market open status. This is a specific verb-resource pair with concrete return fields, and it distinguishes from siblings like get_chart or get_asset_info which cover broader 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 purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer it is for fetching price-related data, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over get_asset_info or get_chart. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, so the usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the scope (all open positions across four asset classes) and the exact fields returned, which is useful context. However, it doesn't disclose whether positions are sorted, whether closed positions are excluded, or any pagination/limit behavior. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the core purpose (listing open positions) and enumerates the asset classes and return fields without any waste. Every element earns its place.

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 zero-parameter read-only list tool with annotations covering safety, the description is nearly complete. It specifies the asset classes and return fields. The only minor gap is not mentioning whether the list is sorted or if there are any limits, but these are not critical for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description compensates by clearly stating what the tool returns (quantity, average cost, current price, market value, profit/loss) and the asset classes covered. With 0 params, the baseline is 4, and the description meets that baseline by providing clear output semantics.

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 lists all open positions across four asset classes (BIST stocks, US stocks, TEFAS funds, US options) and specifies the exact fields returned (quantity, average cost, current price, market value, profit/loss). This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like get_portfolio or get_transactions.

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 this is the tool for open positions, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like get_portfolio or get_transactions. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer usage, but there's no explicit when/when-not guidance or mention of alternatives.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by specifying that the tool returns unprocessed OHLCV data and lists the returned fields, but it does not disclose ordering, pagination, or data-range behavior. This adds some value beyond the annotations but leaves behavioral gaps.

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?

Two concise sentences deliver the core purpose, field list, and the alternative tool routing without any filler or repetition. The primary action is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 moderate-complexity read-only data tool, the description covers the essential selection criteria (raw vs. calculated, field list) and the schema covers parameters. With no output schema, the field enumeration partially compensates for the lack of a structural return description; the main omission is ordering/pagination, but the tool remains callable correctly from the provided context.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (symbol, limit, interval) are already documented in the schema, including the interval enum and the 500-candle maximum. The description itself does not add parameter-level meaning beyond saying the result is raw OHLCV, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('döner' = returns), the resource (raw OHLCV candles for a symbol), and enumerates the exact fields (open, high, low, close, volume, timestamp). It also differentiates the tool from get_technicals by emphasizing raw vs. calculated 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 explicitly instructs when to use this tool versus the sibling: use get_technicals for calculated indicators and only use get_chart when a raw series is needed. This is direct, actionable routing guidance with no ambiguity.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: account aggregation across BIST/TEFAS/ABD in a single call and symbol-based filtering behavior, which are non-obvious and useful for invocation.

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?

A single compact sentence delivers both the core purpose and the conditional behavior with no filler. The most important scoping information is front-loaded.

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?

The tool is simple: one optional parameter, read-only annotation, and the description covers both invocation modes and the kind of data returned (order IDs). No output schema is present, but the description sufficiently indicates return content.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the symbol property is already documented. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema: empty means all accounts, populated means only that instrument, which directly informs how the agent should call the tool.

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 states a specific verb ('lists'), a clear resource ('pending orders'), and includes the distinguishing qualifier 'not yet realized' with order IDs. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_transactions and get_portfolio.

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 gives explicit conditional guidance: omit symbol to get all accounts in one call, provide symbol to filter to one instrument. It does not explicitly name an alternative for executed orders, but the sibling context makes that distinction inferable.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying exactly what data is returned (TL total value, daily P/L, cash and buying power for both BIST and USD accounts), which is not derivable from annotations or the empty schema. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

A single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists the returned components without any filler. Every phrase adds meaning, and there is no redundant restatement of the tool name or trivial details.

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 read-only, no-parameter tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently conveys what the agent will receive, including specific financial metrics and account breakdowns. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to understand the tool's behavior and decide whether to call it.

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 takes zero parameters, so the description has no obligation to explain parameter behavior. Per the baseline for no-parameter tools, a 4 is appropriate because the schema is trivially complete and the description correctly focuses on output rather than input.

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 action (returns) and the resource (portfolio), enumerating specific data items (total value in TL, daily P/L, cash balances and buying power for BIST/TRY and USD accounts). This is distinct from sibling tools like get_assets or get_transactions, which target individual assets or transaction histories.

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 makes it evident this tool is for retrieving an overall portfolio summary, which is the clear context of use. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, unlike a definition that names a sibling. Still, the context is unambiguous for an agent seeking portfolio-level metrics.

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

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds a behavioral disclaimer that none of the results are investment advice and clarifies that it produces a computed summary rather than raw data, offering context beyond the annotations without contradiction.

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 front-loaded with purpose, followed by a necessary indicator list and a short usage/disclaimer sentence. Every part earns its place, though the list is long; it remains informative and efficient.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the computed indicators and adding a usage note. It does not describe the output structure or pagination, but for a 2-parameter, read-only tool this is sufficient for correct invocation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both symbol and interval already documented in the input schema. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, such as how interval affects calculations or default values, so it stays at the baseline for full 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 computes a full technical analysis summary from price history, enumerating specific indicators (RSI, SMA/EMA, MACD, Bollinger, ATR, volatility, etc.). This makes it straightforwardly distinct from siblings like get_chart or get_asset_price.

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?

Usage is implied by the detailed description and the instruction to use outputs as analysis input, but it never names alternatives or gives explicit when-not-to-use conditions compared to sibling tools. No exclusions or tool comparisons are provided.

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

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the returned structure includes id/name/parentId, and the data represents a category hierarchy for filtering transaction history.

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 entire description is one compact sentence that states the resource, its purpose, and its fields without repetition or filler. Every part contributes to an agent's understanding of what the tool returns and why it exists.

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 parameterless, read-only tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it names the data source (Atlas transaction history), the domain (category tree), the fields (id, name, parentId), and the intended usage (get_transactions filter). Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to explain. The baseline for a parameterless tool is therefore appropriate, and the description adds all relevant semantic information about the result.

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 states a specific verb ('listeler') and resource (Atlas transaction history category tree) and identifies the exact fields returned (id, name, parentId). It clearly separates this tool from get_transactions by positioning it as the filter taxonomy for that sibling.

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 explicitly says the tree is intended as a filter for get_transactions, giving a clear use context. It does not mention exclusion cases or alternative tools, but with zero parameters and a specialized purpose, this is sufficient guidance.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral detail: newest-first ordering, inclusion of pending rows regardless of status filter, the full set of statuses, and the default 30-day window. These go beyond the structured annotations and help the agent understand runtime 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 dense paragraph that front-loads the core purpose and then adds enumerations of transaction types, row fields, and defaults. Every sentence contributes value, but the list of categories and statuses makes it moderately long. It is efficient for its content, though a clearer separation of key defaults would improve scannability.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers the important aspects: what transactions are included, the row fields, the statuses, the inclusion of pending rows, and the default date range. It does not describe pagination behavior or error/rate-limit handling, but the schema covers parameters and annotations cover safety. The reference to get_transaction_filters in the schema partially handles filter usage, so the description is fairly complete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about defaults (e.g., 'son 30 gün' aligns with from_date/to_date defaults) and pending-row behavior related to status, but it does not explain parameters like filter or details beyond what the schema already states. It neither fully compensates for gaps nor adds significant new parameter meaning.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it returns transaction history ('Hesap hareketleri geçmişi'), and enumerates the transaction categories covered (stock/ETF/TEFAS trades, TL/FX deposits and withdrawals, interest, dividend, instant cash). It also notes the ordering (newest first) and that pending rows are always included, which helps distinguish it from get_pending_orders and other siblings.

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 clearly conveys what the tool returns and its scope, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_pending_orders, or provide any exclusions. The phrase 'Bekleyen satırlar her zaman dahildir' implies pending rows are covered, but no sibling routing is given, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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