finstack-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 discloses what financial metrics are returned, which is useful behavioral context, but omits operational details such as data freshness, rate limits, or error behavior for invalid tickers.

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?

Well-structured with front-loaded purpose statement followed by return value description, Args section, and Examples. Every sentence serves a purpose. Minor deduction for docstring-style formatting (Args/Examples headers) which is slightly verbose but acceptable.

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 simple 2-parameter input and existence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description is sufficiently complete. It compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions and provides appropriate context about returned financial metrics without needing to detail the output structure.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description fully compensates by documenting both parameters with clear semantics, data types, examples (INFY, GOOGL), and default values (quarterly=False implies annual data).

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?

States specific action 'Get cash flow statement' and clearly distinguishes this from siblings like balance_sheet and income_statement by enumerating unique cash flow metrics returned (operating, investing, financing, free cash flow, capex). However, it does not explicitly reference sibling tools to clarify 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?

Provides clear examples showing how to use the symbol and quarterly parameters, including the default behavior (annual). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like income_statement or balance_sheet, or when quarterly vs annual data is preferable.

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