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 and effectively discloses the return structure by listing all six metric categories. It also clarifies geographic coverage (Indian and US stocks). Minor gap: no mention of data freshness, rate limits, or whether metrics are TTM or quarterly.

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 visual hierarchy: purpose statement → organized bullet categories → geographic scope → parameters → examples. Every sentence earns its place; the category list is essential for sibling differentiation in this crowded financial toolset.

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 single-parameter simplicity and presence of output schema, the description is complete. It successfully carves out a distinct niche among 40+ sibling financial tools by specifying exactly which calculated ratios are returned (P/E, ROE, etc.) rather than raw financial data.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates with an 'Args' section defining 'symbol' as 'Stock ticker' and providing concrete examples (RELIANCE, TCS, AAPL, MSFT) that clarify expected format for both Indian and US markets.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Get key financial ratios and valuation metrics') and immediately distinguishes from siblings by enumerating six specific ratio categories (Valuation, Profitability, Growth, etc.). This clearly differentiates it from raw financial statement tools like balance_sheet or income_statement, and from price-only 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?

The description provides implicit usage guidance through the detailed category breakdown and geographic scope ('Works for both Indian and US stocks'), but lacks explicit when-to-use guidance versus alternatives like 'use balance_sheet instead for raw financial data' or 'use technical_indicators for chart-based metrics'.

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