equivault-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it returns a comprehensive snapshot, handles tier restrictions by marking sections as unavailable instead of failing, and implies it's a read operation. However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, or response format, leaving gaps for a tool with no output schema.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first clause and uses two efficient sentences with zero waste, each adding critical information (snapshot scope and error handling for tier restrictions).

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 complexity (comprehensive data aggregation) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers purpose and error handling but omits details on return values, data structure, or behavioral constraints like pagination, which are needed for full agent understanding.

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 for the single parameter (company_id), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by implicitly linking the parameter to the output context (e.g., 'comprehensive company snapshot'), though it does not provide additional syntax or format details beyond the schema.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Get a comprehensive company snapshot') and resources ('profile, financial statements, metrics, and investment narrative'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_company or get_financials by emphasizing comprehensiveness in a single call.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('in a single call' for a snapshot) and mentions tier-based access limitations, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools, such as get_company for basic info.

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