lynx-mi/lynx-mi-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions filtering by ticker but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, data freshness, pagination, or error handling. For a data retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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—two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and a key feature (filtering). It's front-loaded with essential information and has zero wasted words, making it highly efficient for quick understanding.

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 doesn't explain return values, data format, or behavioral traits like rate limits. For a tool with three parameters and no structured safety hints, more context is needed to ensure reliable agent use.

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 fully documents the three parameters (ticker, days, limit). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning ticker filtering but doesn't elaborate on parameter interactions or semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 recent stock trades by US Congress members (House and Senate).' It specifies the resource (stock trades), actors (Congress members), and scope (recent, filterable). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_latest_trades' or 'get_trades_by_insider', which might overlap in 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 minimal usage guidance: 'Filterable by ticker.' It doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_trades_by_insider' or 'get_latest_trades', nor does it mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or optimal contexts for use. The guidance is insufficient for informed tool selection.

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