equivault-mcp

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses access requirements (Advisor tier) and the type of data returned (insider transactions with 10b5-1 flag), which adds useful context. However, it omits behavioral details like rate limits, pagination, error handling, or response format, limiting transparency for a tool with no annotations.

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 key information (what the tool does and access requirement) with zero wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter and no complex outputs.

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, no output schema, and a simple input schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the tool's purpose and access requirement but lacks details on return values, error cases, or behavioral constraints, which are needed for full context in the absence of structured fields.

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 fully documents the single parameter (company_id). The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining how company_id relates to insider transactions or providing examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 retrieves insider transactions (buys, sells, grants, exercises) with a specific flag (10b5-1), making the verb+resource explicit. However, it does not distinguish from siblings like 'get_management_statements' or 'get_signals' that might also provide related data, preventing a perfect score.

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 by specifying a required tier (Advisor), which provides some context for when to use it based on access level. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., vs. 'get_management_statements' for insider insights) or any exclusions, leaving usage partially inferred.

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