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 the Advisor tier requirement (an auth/access constraint) and the scoping behavior for company_id, which are valuable behavioral traits. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects, rate limits, or what happens on successful creation (e.g., returns an alert ID).

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 perfectly sized at three sentences with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by important scoping details, and ends with the access requirement. Every sentence earns its place by adding distinct value.

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 creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by covering purpose, scoping behavior, and access requirements. However, it doesn't explain what happens after creation (e.g., whether alerts are active immediately, what format the response might have), which would be helpful given the lack of output schema.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds some context about company_id scoping ('if omitted, the alert applies to all followed companies'), but doesn't provide additional semantic meaning beyond what's in the schema descriptions for other 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 verb ('Create') and resource ('new alert rule') with specific functionality ('fires when a metric meets a condition'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'delete_alert' and 'update_alert' by specifying creation rather than modification or deletion.

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 about when to use it (creating alerts for metrics) and includes an important prerequisite ('Requires Advisor tier'). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like 'update_alert' for modifying existing alerts.

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