Databento 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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the conversion action but doesn't mention side effects (e.g., file creation, overwriting), performance characteristics (e.g., speed, memory usage), error handling, or output format details. For a file conversion tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a straightforward conversion tool, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 file format conversion, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like error conditions, output file structure, or performance implications. For a tool that modifies data formats, more context is needed to use it effectively.

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 schema fully documents all three parameters (input_path, output_path, compression) with descriptions, enums, and defaults. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as file format details or compression trade-offs. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('Convert') and resource ('DBN file to Parquet format'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from the sibling 'export_to_parquet' tool, which might have overlapping functionality. The description is specific but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 like 'export_to_parquet' or 'read_dbn_file'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing an existing DBN file, or exclusions, like whether it works with streaming data. Usage is implied by the action but not explicitly stated.

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