finstack-mcp

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses valid enum values for period/interval constraints, but omits operational details like data freshness, rate limits, error handling for invalid symbols, or whether OHLCV data is returned.

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?

Excellent structure with clear header, Args section, and Examples section. Docstring format is efficient—every line earns its place without verbosity. Information is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 existence of an output schema (so return values need not be described) and the comprehensive parameter documentation, the description is functionally complete. Minor deduction for missing operational context like data sources or rate limits.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage (only titles provided), the description fully compensates by documenting all three parameters in the Args section with specific valid values and formats, plus concrete usage examples that clarify semantics.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb ('Get') and clear resource ('historical cryptocurrency price data'), distinguishing it from sibling tool crypto_price (likely current price) and stock_historical (different asset class).

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 concrete examples showing valid parameter combinations (e.g., '1y' with '1d'), which implies usage for time-series analysis. However, lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus crypto_price or other historical tools.

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