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 retrieves data ('Get'), implying a read-only operation, but does not specify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or handles errors. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 front-loads the core purpose. It lists specific components of the earnings quality assessment, which adds useful detail without redundancy. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating the tool's action from the returned components for better clarity.

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 tool's complexity (retrieving multi-component financial assessments), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It specifies what data is returned but lacks details on format, pagination, or error handling. For a tool with 1 parameter and high schema coverage, it meets minimal viability but could improve by addressing behavioral aspects.

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_id' documented as 'Company ID from search_companies'. The description does not add any further meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately handles parameter documentation.

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: to retrieve an earnings quality assessment with specific components (accruals ratio, cash conversion, non-GAAP adjustments, and flags). It uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the resource ('earnings quality assessment'), but does not explicitly differentiate it from similar sibling tools like 'get_financials' or 'get_accounting_snapshots', which might also provide financial 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as needing a company ID from 'search_companies', nor does it contrast with sibling tools like 'get_financials' or 'get_metrics' that might overlap in functionality. Usage is implied only by the tool name and description.

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