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. While 'Get' implies a read operation, it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, data freshness, or response format. The description mentions what data is returned but not how it's structured or any limitations.

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 efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and output components. No wasted words or redundant information. The description is appropriately sized for a simple data retrieval tool.

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 single-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic information about what data is returned. However, it lacks details about response structure, data format, or any constraints that would help an agent use it effectively. The absence of output schema increases the need for more behavioral context.

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% with one parameter clearly documented. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (company_id from search_companies). This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 the resource 'debt maturity schedule' with specific components (principal due per year, interest rates, instrument types). It distinguishes this from general company analysis tools but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other financial data tools like get_financials or get_metrics.

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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like get_financials, get_metrics, and get_company that might provide overlapping or related data, the description offers no context about when this specific debt maturity data is needed versus other financial analysis tools.

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