Excel Finance MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'perform sensitivity analysis' implies a computational operation, it doesn't describe what the tool actually returns (no output schema), whether it modifies data, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what format the results come in. The description is too vague about the actual behavior.

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 extremely concise - a single sentence that gets straight to the point without any fluff. Every word serves a purpose, making it front-loaded and efficient. This is appropriate conciseness for a tool description.

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 complex tool with 6 parameters (3 required), no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how results are presented, what the 'worksheetName' implies about output format, or provide enough context about the sensitivity analysis methodology. The single sentence leaves too many questions unanswered.

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 only 17% schema description coverage (only 'sensitivityRange' has a description), the description must compensate but fails to do so. It mentions 'variable impact' which hints at the 'variables' parameter, but provides no explanation of what 'formula', 'scenarioName', 'description', or 'worksheetName' mean in context. The description adds minimal value beyond the bare 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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('perform') and resource ('sensitivity analysis'), and it explains what the analysis does ('understand variable impact on outcomes'). It distinguishes from some siblings like forecasting or valuation tools, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'analytics_scenario_comparison' which might have overlapping functionality.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many analytics siblings available (e.g., 'analytics_monte_carlo_simulation', 'analytics_scenario_comparison'), there's no indication of when sensitivity analysis is preferred over other analytical methods or what specific scenarios it's designed for.

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