finstack-mcp

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full disclosure burden. It successfully specifies the return content (revenue, profit, EPS, EBITDA, growth rates) and scope (last 4 quarters). Does not mention data freshness (real-time vs delayed) or rate limits, but covers primary behavioral expectations for a read-only financial data tool.

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?

Uses docstring-style structure with Args: and Examples: sections. While slightly unconventional for MCP descriptions, every element earns its place given the zero schema coverage. Examples provide critical clarification for the symbol format. Information is front-loaded with the core purpose statement.

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 with existing output schema. Description previews return values (specific financial metrics) without needing to fully document the output structure. Coverage of the 4-quarter lookback and QoQ growth provides sufficient context for invocation.

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 (symbol parameter lacks description field). Description fully compensates by specifying 'NSE stock symbol' with concrete uppercase examples (RELIANCE, TCS, INFY, HDFCBANK), clarifying the expected format and source exchange.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Get' with clear resource 'quarterly financial results' and scope 'NSE stock'. Explicitly lists metrics returned (revenue, profit, EPS, EBITDA) and timeframe (last 4 quarters), distinguishing it from sibling tools like income_statement (annual) or nse_quote (current price).

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?

Description implies usage through emphasis on 'quarterly' data and 'quarter-over-quarter growth rates', implicitly defining its niche against annual statement tools. However, lacks explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternatives (e.g., 'for annual data use income_statement').

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