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. It successfully discloses return values ('Returns company info (CIK number) and link'), but does not explicitly confirm the read-only/idempotent nature of the search operation or mention any rate limiting constraints.

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 uses a well-structured format with clear sections (purpose, returns, sibling reference, Args, Examples). Every sentence serves a distinct function; there is no redundant or wasted text despite the multi-line format.

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 this is a single-parameter search tool with an output schema available, the description provides complete context. It documents the input parameter, references the sibling tool for workflow context, and describes the essential return values (CIK, link) without needing to replicate the full 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?

Schema coverage is 0% (only title 'Symbol' provided). The description fully compensates by documenting the parameter in the Args section ('US stock ticker (e.g., AAPL, MSFT, GOOGL)') and demonstrating usage in examples, providing complete semantic context missing from the schema.

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 explicitly states the verb (Search), resource (SEC EDGAR), and scope (get filing page/CIK). It clearly differentiates from the sibling tool sec_filing by stating 'Use sec_filing() to get specific filing documents,' establishing this tool's role as the discovery/lookup step.

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 explicit guidance on when to use the sibling tool instead ('Use sec_filing() to get specific filing documents'), effectively defining this tool's boundaries. The examples also demonstrate proper invocation patterns for the target use case.

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