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. It discloses the return data structure (commit velocity, contributor growth, etc.) and search behavior (case-insensitive), but lacks details on error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination. This is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with two sentences that efficiently convey purpose, return data, and usage without any wasted words or redundancy.

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 tool's moderate complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete—it covers purpose, return data, and usage. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like error cases or performance, which would be needed for full 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the parameter fully. The description adds marginal value by reiterating that the parameter accepts 'startup name or GitHub org name' and providing examples, but does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 specific action ('Get') and resource ('engineering signal profile for a specific startup'), and distinguishes from siblings by specifying it returns detailed profile data rather than summaries, methodologies, trending lists, or sector searches.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('Search by startup name or GitHub org name'), but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools, which would be needed for a perfect score.

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