mcp-deal-flow-signal

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates this is a read-only operation ('Get') and describes the content type (methodology details), but doesn't cover aspects like response format, potential errors, or performance characteristics. This provides basic context but lacks depth for a tool with no annotation support.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently lists key components (sourcing, calculations, limitations) without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and every element adds value, making it highly concise and effective.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and low complexity (0 parameters), the description adequately covers the purpose and scope. However, it lacks details on return values (e.g., structured data vs. text) and behavioral traits like error handling, which would be beneficial for an agent. It's minimally viable but has clear gaps in completeness.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate here. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as no compensation is needed and the description doesn't introduce confusion.

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 retrieves methodology information about startup engineering data, specifying the scope (GitHub API sourcing, metric calculations, limitations). It distinguishes from siblings like get_signals_summary or get_startup_signal by focusing on methodology rather than data results. However, it doesn't explicitly name the resource (e.g., 'documentation' or 'report'), keeping it at 4 instead of 5.

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 implies usage when understanding data sourcing and calculations is needed, which differentiates it from siblings that provide actual data (e.g., get_trending_startups). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., for debugging vs. analysis) or any exclusions, resulting in an implied rather than explicit guideline score.

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