equivault-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool compares financial metrics but doesn't reveal key traits: whether this is a read-only operation, what metrics are included, if there are rate limits, how results are formatted, or if it requires authentication. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient to guide the agent effectively.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff. It's front-loaded with the core function and uses clear language, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place, contributing to understanding without redundancy.

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 complexity of comparing financial metrics across companies, the description is incomplete. There are no annotations, no output schema, and the description lacks details on behavior, return values, or usage context. While the schema covers the single parameter, the overall tool understanding is inadequate for effective agent invocation, especially with many sibling tools that might overlap.

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, with the parameter 'company_ids' documented as 'Comma-separated company IDs to compare (from search_companies results).' The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it doesn't elaborate on the parameter's usage or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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: 'Compare financial metrics across multiple companies side by side.' It specifies the verb ('compare') and resource ('financial metrics across multiple companies'), making the function evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_metrics' or 'analyze_company', which might also involve metrics or comparisons, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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, such as needing company IDs from 'search_companies', or contrast it with similar tools like 'get_metrics' for single companies or 'screen_companies' for broader filtering. This lack of context leaves the agent without clear usage instructions.

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