server_info

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 discloses that the tool returns known limitations, indicating transparency about server constraints. However, it does not mention whether it is read-only or if there are any other behavioral caveats, though for an info endpoint this is largely self-evident.

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, well-structured sentence that directly lists the key information categories. It is front-loaded, containing no filler or redundant phrasing.

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 zero-parameter informational tool with an existing output schema, the description is complete. It names the three key content areas (version, data source, known limitations), and the output schema can provide further structural details. There is no additional context needed for correct invocation.

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 zero parameters, so the empty schema fully covers the input requirements. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds no parameter-specific detail, which is appropriate given there is nothing to explain.

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 specifies the tool's purpose: providing version, data source, and known limitations of this server. It is distinct from all sibling tools, which focus on ETF data retrieval, making it immediately recognizable as a server metadata endpoint.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the use case is implied: when you need server version, data source, or known limitations. Since no sibling tool serves this purpose, the lack of explicit exclusion is not a major gap.

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