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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists profiles but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether it's a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, pagination, or error handling. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves the agent with insufficient information about how the tool behaves in practice.

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 two sentences that are front-loaded and efficient. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds useful context about what profiles define. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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's low complexity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is adequate but not complete. It explains what profiles are but misses behavioral details like safety, performance, or integration with other tools. For a simple list operation, it meets minimum viability but could be more informative.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds value by explaining what the tool returns ('investment strategy profiles' and 'screening criteria'), which compensates for the lack of an output schema. This goes beyond the schema, earning a high score.

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: 'List all available investment strategy profiles (system + custom).' It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('investment strategy profiles'), and distinguishes between system and custom profiles. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'screen_companies' or 'get_signals', which might also involve strategy-related operations, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., for portfolio setup or analysis), or exclusions. With many sibling tools like 'screen_companies' or 'get_signals' that might overlap in investment strategy contexts, this lack of differentiation is a significant gap.

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