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 indicates access tier via '[PRO]' tag and explains the calculation methodology (pivot points). However, it omits safety profile (read-only vs destructive), rate limits, or computational cost despite having no annotations to cover these.

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?

Well-structured with clear sections (summary, Args, Examples). The [PRO] badge is front-loaded. While the Args section uses formal headers rather than prose, this is justified given the schema lacks descriptions. No redundant sentences; each line adds value beyond the structured fields.

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 existence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description appropriately focuses on input parameters and usage examples rather than return values. It covers the essential domain context (pivot point formulas) and parameter domains. Could improve by mentioning data frequency or calculation methodology specifics.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates via the Args section: symbol is defined with format examples ('RELIANCE, AAPL, TCS') and period includes valid enum values ('3mo, 6mo, 1y, 2y') and default value. Examples further reinforce parameter semantics.

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 opens with specific verb ('Compute') and resource ('support and resistance levels for a stock'), then distinguishes itself from generic analysis tools by specifying it calculates 'pivot points (R1, R2, R3, S1, S2, S3)' and identifies 'key price levels from historical price action', clearly differentiating from siblings like technical_indicators or 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?

Provides concrete usage examples showing valid parameter combinations (e.g., 'support_resistance("AAPL", "1y")'), which imply usage patterns. However, lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus similar siblings like technical_indicators, or prerequisites such as market data availability.

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