Databento MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates this is a diagnostic/read-only operation for checking connectivity, which is helpful, but doesn't mention potential side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what constitutes a 'healthy' response. The description adds basic context but lacks comprehensive behavioral details.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second provides usage guidance. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse and understand 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?

For a simple diagnostic tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides adequate context about purpose and usage. However, without annotations or output schema, it could benefit from more detail about what the health check actually returns (e.g., status codes, metrics) or any prerequisites. The description is reasonably complete but has minor gaps.

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 100% schema description coverage for the single parameter, the schema already documents the 'verbose' parameter thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, but with only one parameter and high schema coverage, the baseline is appropriate. No additional 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 clearly states the specific action ('Check the health and connectivity') and target resource ('Databento API'), distinguishing it from sibling tools focused on data operations, batch jobs, or account management. It provides a concrete purpose beyond just restating the tool 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?

The description explicitly states when to use this tool ('to diagnose connection issues or verify the server is working properly'), providing clear context for its application. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on system health rather than data processing or account operations.

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