equivault-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it retrieves data ('Get'), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, data freshness, or return format. For a tool with no annotations, 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 with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward data retrieval tool.

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. It doesn't explain what metrics/KPIs are returned, their format, or any limitations (e.g., historical depth, company coverage). For a tool with rich sibling context, more detail is needed to guide effective 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 fully documents parameters (company_id, period_from, period_to). The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying time-series data, which is already covered by the schema's date parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the 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 action ('Get') and resource ('financial metrics and key performance indicators for a company over time'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_financials' by specifying 'metrics and KPIs' rather than raw financial data, though the distinction could be more explicit.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_financials' or 'get_company'. The description implies it's for time-series metrics, but lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives, leaving usage context unclear.

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