finstack-mcp

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It effectively discloses return data fields (current price, 24h change, market cap, volume, ATH) beyond what the output schema covers. However, it omits data freshness details (real-time vs delayed) and error behavior for invalid symbols.

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 purpose first, then return values, then Args, then Examples. Front-loaded effectively. Minor deduction for repetitive examples (three instances showing identical usage pattern), though they do illustrate different valid tickers.

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?

Adequate for a single-parameter tool with output schema. Covers purpose, parameter semantics, and return data summary. Could be improved by mentioning distinction from 'crypto_historical' or data source limitations, but sufficient for agent selection.

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?

Schema coverage is 0% (no description field), but the description fully compensates by defining 'symbol' as 'Crypto ticker' with extensive valid examples (BTC, ETH, SOL, etc.), clarifying expected format and valid inputs.

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?

Specific verb 'Get' + resource 'cryptocurrency price' with currency 'USD' specified. The term 'live' effectively distinguishes it from sibling tool 'crypto_historical' (which implies past data) and from equity tools like 'stock_quote'.

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?

Implies usage through 'live' keyword (current data only) but lacks explicit guidance on when to use 'crypto_historical' instead, or warnings about cryptocurrency vs. stock ticker formats. No 'when-not-to-use' guidance provided.

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