Marlo 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. It states 'Get a valuation' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, returns real-time or historical data, or what format the valuation takes. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 with no wasted words, making it front-loaded and easy to parse. However, it's under-specified for a financial tool, leaning toward brevity over completeness, which slightly reduces its effectiveness.

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 of financial valuation, lack of annotations, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'valuation' entails, return format, or usage context, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively in this rich environment.

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 with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it appropriately doesn't mention any. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as it avoids unnecessary details.

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 'Get a valuation of company' clearly states the action (get) and resource (company valuation), but it's vague about what constitutes 'valuation' (e.g., financial metrics, market value) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'get_vessel_valuation' or 'get_balance_sheet', which might provide related financial data. It avoids tautology by not merely restating the name.

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 like 'get_balance_sheet' or 'get_profit_loss' that might offer financial insights, the description lacks context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.

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