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. It mentions the tool retrieves data ('Get') and allows filtering, but lacks critical behavioral details: whether it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what the output format looks like. For a data retrieval tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 and includes optional filtering details. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, though it could be slightly more structured by separating the main action from the filter explanation.

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 data retrieval tool. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like safety, permissions, or output format, and while the schema handles parameters well, the overall context lacks necessary operational details for effective agent use.

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 (guru_id and change_type with enum values). The description adds marginal value by explaining that change_type filters for 'new positions, increased, decreased, or sold', which aligns with the enum but doesn't provide additional syntax or context beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Get portfolio holdings for a prominent investor (guru)' with optional filtering by change type. It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('portfolio holdings'), and target ('prominent investor'), making it distinct from siblings like get_financials or get_insider_transactions. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from get_portfolio_analytics, which might be a related sibling.

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 implies usage context by mentioning optional filtering by change type, suggesting it's for analyzing investment changes. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_portfolio_analytics or get_insider_transactions, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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