Fetch durables data from Alpha Vantage to analyze manufacturing sector performance and economic indicators.
Fetch durables
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "durables"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| datatype | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. 'Fetch durables' implies a read-only operation but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, data freshness, or response format. It fails to compensate for the absence of structured 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 extremely concise with two words, front-loaded and zero waste. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of clarity and completeness, but strictly on structure, it's 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?
Given the complexity (1 parameter with no schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'durables' are, how to use the parameter, or what to expect in return, leaving the tool's functionality ambiguous.
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 'datatype' with 0% description coverage and no enums. The description adds no meaning about this parameter—it doesn't explain what 'datatype' is, valid values, or how it affects fetching. With low schema coverage, the description doesn't compensate.
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 'Fetch durables' restates the tool name 'durables' with a generic verb 'fetch', making it tautological. It doesn't specify what 'durables' refers to (e.g., economic data, financial instruments, or commodities) or distinguish it from sibling tools like 'aluminum', 'copper', or 'wheat' which appear to be commodity-related.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (e.g., commodity-specific ones like 'aluminum', 'copper'), the description offers no context for selection, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.