get_capabilities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds useful context: the tool returns non-sensitive configuration, explicitly noting 'no credentials or API keys.' This goes beyond the structured fields, addressing safety and scope concerns.

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 brief and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second paragraph adds useful specifics without repetition. Every sentence earns its place, including the non-sensitive reassurance.

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 tool has no parameters, a rich output schema, and strong annotations, the description covers all necessary aspects: what it returns, supported analyses, default parameters, server limits, and security posture. It is fully complete for a capabilities/metadata tool.

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 input parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately focuses on the output content rather than parameter details, and no parameter semantics are needed.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Return the capabilities and configuration of this TradingAgents MCP server.' It clearly identifies the tool's scope and differentiates it from siblings that handle analysis lifecycle, such as start_analysis or list_analyses.

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 when to use the tool by stating it 'Describes what analyses are supported, default parameters, and server limits,' positioning it as a discovery/preflight tool before running analyses. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tools are clearly distinct operations and no ambiguity arises.

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