equivault-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the optional 'history' parameter but does not disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, response format, error conditions, or whether this is a read-only operation. The description is minimal beyond the basic function.

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, followed by a concise explanation of the optional parameter. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without redundancy or fluff.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that returns complex narrative data. It lacks details on response structure (e.g., format of the thesis, how history versions are presented), error handling, or any constraints, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use it effectively.

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 both parameters ('company_id' and 'history'). The description adds marginal value by explaining that 'history=true' includes 'prior narrative versions', which slightly clarifies the boolean's purpose beyond the schema's 'Include prior narrative versions'.

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 specific action ('Get the investment thesis for a company') and resource ('company'), including detailed components ('value drivers, headwinds, and tailwinds'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_company' (general info) or 'get_financials' (numeric data) by focusing on narrative/thesis content.

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 the tool (to obtain investment thesis with optional history), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings (e.g., 'get_brief' or 'research_report' might overlap). The guidance is helpful but lacks exclusion criteria.

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