SET-MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the return format (CSV with | delimiter) and content (Income Statement, Balance Sheet, Cash Flow Statement), which is valuable. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or data freshness—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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. The Args and Returns sections are structured clearly, though the initial sentence could be more precise (e.g., 'Get financial statements' instead of 'balance sheet'). Minimal waste, but minor redundancy in year examples.

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 3 parameters, the description is moderately complete. It covers parameters and return format adequately but lacks context on errors, data sources, or usage limits. For a financial tool with potential complexity, more behavioral details would improve completeness.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining all three parameters: symbol (stock symbol in SET), from_year (start YEAR with example), and to_year (end YEAR with example). It adds meaning beyond the bare schema, though it could clarify year format or valid ranges.

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 the balance sheet of stock in The Securities Exchange of Thailand (SET).' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('balance sheet of stock'), though the title 'get_financial_statement' and later mention of multiple statement types creates minor ambiguity. No sibling tools exist to differentiate from.

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, prerequisites, or constraints. It only states what the tool does without context about appropriate scenarios or limitations. With no sibling tools, this is less critical but still a gap.

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