Search research papers with provider provenance to verify source reliability. Returns matching papers with metadata and provider info, enabling reproducible financial research.
Search research papers together with provider provenance.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| provider | No | auto |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided. The description implies a read-only search but does not state side effects, rate limits, or whether it returns cached or live data. The behavior is only partially transparent.
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 a single compact sentence without redundancy. It directly states the core function and a distinguishing detail, achieving high information density in minimal space.
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?
The description conveys the general purpose and mentions provider provenance, but lacks details on parameter behaviors, result format, and when to prefer this over sibling search tools. It is adequate for a basic understanding but not fully complete.
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?
The input schema provides no descriptions for query, limit, or provider, and the description does not explain any of them. With 0% schema coverage and no compensating text, the parameters remain completely undefined.
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 names the action (search) and resource (research papers), and adds 'provider provenance' to indicate result attributes. It is distinct from sibling search tools (e.g., search_news, search_documents) but the provenance phrase is slightly ambiguous.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_news or search_documents. It does not mention any conditions that would favor this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.