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 mentions 'Get' (implying read-only) and lists dashboard components, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, response format, or whether it's real-time vs cached. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose ('Get portfolio-wide signal dashboard'), followed by specific components. Zero waste—every phrase adds value. Efficiently structured for quick comprehension.

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 moderate complexity (dashboard with multiple data types), the description is incomplete. It lists components but doesn't explain return structure, data freshness, or error handling. For a tool with rich sibling context, more detail is warranted.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable since there are no parameters to document. No compensation is needed.

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-wide signal dashboard' with specific components (recent signals, unread counts, per-company breakdown). It distinguishes from siblings like get_signals (general signals) and get_signal_summary (summary rather than dashboard), though not explicitly named. The verb 'Get' is appropriate for a read operation.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_signals, get_signal_summary, or get_trending_signals. The description implies it's for portfolio-wide overviews, but doesn't specify contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions. Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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