equivault-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions pagination support, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not disclose other traits like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what 'detected signals' specifically entail beyond the examples given, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 concise with two sentences that efficiently cover the tool's purpose and pagination support. It is front-loaded with the main functionality, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly listing key features or constraints.

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 provides basic context but lacks details on return values, error conditions, or deeper behavioral aspects. It is minimally adequate for a read operation but incomplete for full agent understanding, especially without output schema guidance.

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 like company_id, page, and limit. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as clarifying the types of signals or how pagination works in practice. 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 tool's purpose: 'Get detected signals for a specific company' with examples like earnings surprises and guidance changes. It specifies the resource (signals) and verb (get), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_signal_summary or get_signal_dashboard, which might offer similar functionality.

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 context by mentioning 'for a specific company' and 'supports pagination', suggesting it's for retrieving paginated signal data per company. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_signal_summary or get_signal_trends, leaving the choice ambiguous.

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