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 states what data is retrieved but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, returns real-time vs historical data, or what format the signals come in. The description is minimal and lacks operational context.

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?

Single sentence with zero waste - every word contributes meaning. Front-loaded with the core action and resource, followed by clarifying examples. No redundant or verbose language.

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 is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the return values look like (structured data, list of signals, timeframes), doesn't mention limitations or scope, and provides minimal context for a tool that presumably returns complex competitive intelligence data.

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), so the schema already documents it fully. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, but with complete schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'competitive signals affecting a company' with specific examples (market share shifts, new entrants, pricing pressure). It distinguishes from generic company tools but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling signal tools like get_signals or get_signal_summary.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_signals, get_signal_summary, or get_signal_dashboard. The description implies it's for competitive signals but doesn't specify prerequisites, context, or exclusions compared to other signal-related tools.

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