finstack-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It successfully discloses the return payload structure by listing specific fields returned, but omits error handling behavior, rate limits, or data freshness characteristics.

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 clear sections: purpose, return value, args, and examples. The examples add value despite taking space. No tautological waste, though the Args/Examples headers add slight verbosity.

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 has an output schema (reducing the need for detailed return documentation) and only one parameter, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers purpose, parameter meaning, and return structure, though data source or caching behavior would improve it further.

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 (only 'title': 'Symbol'). The description compensates effectively with clear parameter semantics ('Stock ticker') and concrete examples (RELIANCE, TCS, AAPL), though it could clarify case sensitivity or exchange prefix requirements.

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 uses specific verbs ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource (company overview/profile). It explicitly lists returned fields (sector, industry, employees, etc.), distinguishing it clearly from sibling tools like balance_sheet or stock_quote which handle financial statements or live pricing.

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 examples provide implicit guidance on usage (e.g., 'What does Reliance Industries do?'), but there is no explicit comparison to alternatives or guidance on when to prefer this over key_ratios or financial statement tools.

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