equivault-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that sections may be 'unavailable' based on user tier, which is valuable behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention other important traits like response format, pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether this is a read-only operation.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and limitations. It's front-loaded with the core functionality, though the parenthetical list of sections could be slightly more streamlined.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides reasonable context about what the tool returns (comprehensive company data) and access limitations. However, it doesn't describe the return format, structure, or what happens when sections are unavailable, leaving gaps for an AI agent to understand the full behavioral contract.

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% for the single parameter 'company_id', which is well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 'Get' and resource 'full fundamental deep-dive for a company', specifying it includes 'everything from analyze_company PLUS all profile sections' with explicit examples. It distinguishes from sibling 'analyze_company' by indicating it's a superset with additional sections.

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 versus 'analyze_company' (as a more comprehensive alternative) and mentions tier-based access limitations. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or compare with other potential alternatives like 'get_company' or 'research_report'.

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