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 mentions ranking by 'engineering acceleration' but does not explain what this metric entails, how rankings are determined, or any limitations like rate limits, permissions, or response format. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's 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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a concise list of available sectors. It avoids unnecessary details, but the sector list is lengthy and could be structured more efficiently, slightly reducing readability.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return format, ranking methodology, or potential errors, which are critical for a tool that ranks startups. The agent lacks sufficient context to understand what to expect from the tool's output.

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 has 100% description coverage, clearly defining the 'sector' parameter as a string with examples. The description adds value by listing all available sector slugs, which helps clarify the parameter's semantics beyond the schema's generic examples, but does not provide additional context like formatting rules or constraints.

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: 'Get startups ranked by engineering acceleration for a specific sector.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('startups'), and ranking criteria ('engineering acceleration'), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_trending_startups' or 'get_startup_signal', which might have different ranking methods or scopes.

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. It lists available sectors but does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'get_trending_startups' or 'get_startup_signal', leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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