equivault-mcp

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but provides minimal behavioral context. It implies a read-only operation ('Get') but doesn't disclose data freshness, rate limits, authentication needs, or output format. The mention of 'evolution' hints at temporal data, but specifics like date ranges or update frequency are missing.

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 with zero waste. It front-loads the core purpose and includes specific details (types of evolution) without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse 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?

For a tool with 1 parameter, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks context on usage, behavioral traits, or output, leaving gaps in understanding how to effectively apply it compared to siblings.

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 'company_id' parameter. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying it's for risk factor evolution, which is already inferred from the tool's purpose. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 the evolution') and resource ('risk factors disclosed in a company's filings'), specifying the types of evolution tracked (new, ongoing, resolved, elevated). It distinguishes from generic company tools like 'get_company' but doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar analysis tools like 'analyze_company' or 'get_signal_trends'.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a company ID from 'search_companies'), exclusions, or compare to siblings like 'get_signal_trends' or 'analyze_company' for risk analysis.

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