IOL MCP Tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what type of historical data (e.g., prices, volumes) is returned. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with three parameters.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by parameter details. It avoids unnecessary fluff, though the 'Args:' section could be slightly more integrated into the flow for better readability.

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 a historical data tool with three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format (e.g., JSON array, CSV), data granularity (daily, hourly), or potential limitations (e.g., max date range), which are crucial for effective tool invocation.

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 description adds substantial meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'symbol' is a stock symbol with an example ('GGAL'), and clarifies the date format ('YYYY-MM-DD') for both start_date and end_date. This compensates well for the schema's lack of documentation, though it could specify date ranges or validation rules.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'historical data for a stock', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential sibling tools that might also retrieve historical data with different scopes or formats, preventing 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 like 'get_past_week_performance' or 'get_quote' from the sibling list. It lacks context about use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool name alone.

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