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 mentions that the tool 'returns companies matching your criteria', which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't specify whether it's paginated, rate-limited, requires authentication, or what the return format looks like (e.g., list of names, detailed objects). For a tool with no annotation coverage, 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 concise and front-loaded, consisting of two clear sentences that state the action and result without unnecessary details. Every sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's function, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly mentioning the input parameter.

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 complexity of screening operations, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the return values include (e.g., company names, IDs, financial metrics), how results are formatted, or any limitations (e.g., maximum filters, performance considerations). This leaves the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the 'filters' parameter fully documented in the schema as a JSON string of screening filters. The description adds minimal value beyond this, only implying that filters are 'financial' and used for 'screening', which doesn't provide additional syntax or format details. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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: 'Screen companies using financial filters' specifies the verb (screen) and resource (companies), and 'Returns companies matching your criteria' indicates the outcome. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'search_companies' or 'get_company', which limits differentiation.

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. With many sibling tools available (e.g., 'search_companies', 'get_company', 'analyze_company'), there's no indication of when screening is preferred over searching or retrieving specific company data, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions.

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