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. While 'List all batch jobs' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what permissions are needed, how results are returned (e.g., pagination, ordering), rate limits, or error conditions. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral aspects undocumented.

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 clearly communicates the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a listing tool and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place, making it easy for an agent to quickly understand what the tool does.

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's moderate complexity (listing with filtering), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but has clear gaps. It explains what the tool does but doesn't cover behavioral aspects, usage context, or return format. For a tool with three parameters and no structured output documentation, more context would be helpful, but the description meets basic requirements.

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 100% description coverage, providing clear documentation for all three parameters (states, since, limit) including defaults and formats. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it doesn't enhance parameter understanding. However, with complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema adequately documents parameters.

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 action ('List') and resource ('batch jobs') with additional context about what information is included ('with their current status'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_batch_job_files' or 'submit_batch_job' by focusing on listing jobs rather than retrieving files or creating jobs. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings like 'analyze_data_quality' or 'health_check' which serve different purposes.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when this tool is appropriate versus other batch-related tools like 'cancel_batch_job' or 'get_batch_job_files', or any specific use cases. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone without explicit direction.

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