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 describes what the tool does ('Find other stocks', 'Reveals hidden connections') but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it requires authentication, rate limits, data freshness, or what the output format looks like (e.g., list of tickers with correlation scores). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to invoke and interpret results.

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 and concise with two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and value. Every sentence earns its place by stating the action and the insight gained, with no redundant or unnecessary information.

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 complexity (finding correlations based on insider activity) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It explains the purpose but lacks details on behavioral aspects, output format, and usage nuances. However, it adequately covers the core functionality for a read-only query tool with a single parameter.

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% coverage with a clear description for the 'ticker' parameter. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema by implying the ticker is used to find correlations through shared insider activity, but it does not provide additional details like format constraints or examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verbs ('Find other stocks', 'Reveals hidden connections') and identifies the resource ('stocks traded by the same insiders who trade a given ticker'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on correlation through shared insider activity rather than direct trades, profiles, or other metrics.

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 context ('to find correlations for' a ticker) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_insider_network or get_trades_by_ticker. It suggests the tool reveals connections through shared insider activity, which provides some guidance but lacks explicit comparisons or exclusions.

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