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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the access requirement ('Requires Advisor tier') which is useful context, but doesn't describe what the tool returns (format, structure, examples), whether it's paginated, rate-limited, or what constitutes 'notable' statements. For a tool with sentiment analysis and attribution features, more behavioral context would be expected.

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 appropriately concise with two clear sentences: one stating the core functionality and one stating the access requirement. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 has no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and access requirements but lacks details about return values, behavioral characteristics, or differentiation from similar tools. For a tool that performs sentiment analysis and attribution, more context about what constitutes 'notable' statements or how results are structured would improve completeness.

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 the single parameter 'company_id' well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (no format hints, examples, or constraints). Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 resource 'notable management statements' with additional features 'sentiment analysis and source attribution', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_company_narrative' or 'research_report' that might also provide management-related information.

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 one explicit usage guideline: 'Requires Advisor tier' indicating a prerequisite access level. However, it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_company_narrative' or 'research_report', nor does it provide context about what makes these statements 'notable' or when sentiment analysis is particularly useful.

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