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 financial statements but does not cover critical aspects such as data freshness, rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or response format. For a read operation with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 without unnecessary words. It directly communicates what the tool does and the resource involved, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 moderate complexity (retrieving financial data with two parameters) and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It lacks details on return values, data scope, or behavioral traits, which are crucial for effective use. However, the clear purpose and high schema coverage provide a basic foundation.

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 clear documentation for both parameters (company_id and period_type), including an enum for period_type. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying financial statements are retrieved, which is already covered by the tool's purpose. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('financial statements'), listing the three statement types (income statement, balance sheet, cash flow) and specifying the target ('for a company'). However, it does not distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'get_company' or 'get_accounting_snapshots', which might also retrieve financial data, leaving some ambiguity about its unique role.

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. With many sibling tools like 'get_company', 'get_accounting_snapshots', and 'get_metrics' that might overlap in financial data retrieval, there is no explicit or implied context for choosing this tool over others, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions.

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