finstack-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden and effectively compensates by detailing return contents ('past dividend dates and amounts, total dividends paid, average dividend'). Explicitly states this is a retrieval operation without side effects, though lacks rate limit or caching details.

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 summary, Args, and Examples. Front-loaded with the core action. Examples are slightly repetitive (three similar invocations) but demonstrate cross-market applicability, justifying their inclusion.

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?

Appropriate for a single-parameter tool. Acknowledges output schema existence (per context signals) by summarizing rather than fully specifying return structure. Missing only read-only annotations which would formally declare the safe, non-destructive nature of the operation.

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 has 0% description coverage (no 'description' field on the symbol property). The Args section compensates effectively by defining 'symbol' as 'Stock ticker' and providing diverse examples (ITC, COALINDIA, AAPL) indicating international support. Could improve by noting format constraints (e.g., case sensitivity).

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?

Clear verb-resource pair ('Get historical dividend payments') specifically identifies the financial data type. While it doesn't explicitly name siblings to differentiate from 'stock_historical' or 'balance_sheet', the specific focus on dividends makes the scope unambiguous.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives (e.g., 'use when you need payout history vs price history') or prerequisites. Usage is implied by the tool name and examples, but lacks prescriptive direction.

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