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. It adds valuable behavioral context by specifying the temporal scope ('recent and historical') and output characteristics ('dates and values'), but omits operational details like rate limits, caching behavior, or authentication requirements.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, data scope, arguments, examples) and front-loads the key action. The examples section is slightly redundant showing the same invocation pattern twice, but overall efficiently communicates necessary information without excessive verbosity.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description is sufficiently complete. It appropriately describes the input parameter (compensating for lack of schema docs) and previews the output content ('dates and values'), satisfying requirements without needing to fully document the return structure.

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?

Given 0% schema description coverage (the 'symbol' property lacks a schema description), the description effectively compensates by defining the parameter as an 'NSE stock symbol' and providing concrete examples (ITC, RELIANCE, TCS, COALINDIA), which clarifies the expected format and domain.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves 'corporate actions for an NSE stock' and explicitly lists the action types covered (dividends, stock splits, bonuses). This provides specific verb-resource mapping, though it lacks explicit differentiation from the sibling tool 'dividend_history' which overlaps partially in scope.

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 concrete usage examples (nse_corporate_actions('ITC')), implying when to invoke the tool, but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'dividend_history' or 'nse_historical', nor does it mention prerequisites or constraints.

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