finstack-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. The verb 'Return' implies a read-only, safe operation, and 'useful links' hints at discovery behavior. However, it lacks explicit safety confirmations (idempotent, no side effects) or details about what the metadata contains (version, status, endpoints).

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence of six words with zero redundancy. Every word earns its place: the action ('Return'), the scope ('basic server metadata'), and additional value ('useful links'). It is appropriately minimal for a zero-parameter info endpoint.

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's simplicity (zero parameters) and the presence of an output schema to define return structure, the description provides adequate context. It categorizes the return value sufficiently ('metadata and links') without duplicating information better left to the output schema.

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 tool accepts zero parameters. Per the evaluation guidelines, zero-parameter tools receive a baseline score of 4. The description does not need to compensate for missing schema documentation, nor does it add explicit context about the empty input, so the baseline is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('Return') and identifies the resource ('basic server metadata and useful links'). It effectively distinguishes this tool from its 30+ financial data siblings by clearly signaling this is a metadata/discovery endpoint rather than a market data query.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. However, the distinct resource type ('server metadata') among financial data tools creates strong implied usage patterns—agents can infer this is for discovery/health checks rather than financial analysis.

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