IOL MCP Tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a read operation ('Get') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or response format. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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, starting with the core purpose followed by parameter details. It uses bullet points for parameters, making it scannable. However, the first sentence could be more polished, and some redundancy exists (e.g., 'optional filters' repeated in parameter list).

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 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, the description is moderately complete. It covers parameter semantics well but lacks behavioral context, usage guidelines, and output details. For a read operation with filtering, it's adequate but has clear gaps in guiding effective use.

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 meaningful context beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that parameters are optional filters, specifies date formats (YYYY-MM-DD), and lists possible status values ('pendientes', 'terminadas', 'canceladas'). This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it doesn't cover all edge cases.

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 'IOL account operations', making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes this from siblings like get_account_status or get_portfolio by specifying it retrieves operations rather than status or holdings. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from get_operation_details or get_historical_data, which might overlap in scope.

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_operation_details or get_historical_data. It mentions optional filters but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. Without context, an agent might struggle to choose between similar tools.

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