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 the tool is 'a powerful signal' but lacks details on what 'Flag' entails (e.g., returns a list, triggers alerts, requires authentication), rate limits, or data sources. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic purpose.

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 two sentences that are front-loaded with the main purpose and efficiently add context about the tool's significance ('A powerful signal for potential information asymmetry'). Every word contributes to understanding without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 (analyzing insider trades relative to earnings dates), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values (e.g., what data is flagged), behavioral traits, or error handling, making it adequate but with clear gaps for effective 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?

The input schema has 1 parameter with 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add specific parameter details beyond the schema, but since there is only one optional parameter ('limit'), the tool's core functionality is well-defined without heavy reliance on parameters, justifying a score above baseline.

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 a specific verb ('Flag') and resource ('insider trades'), specifying the condition 'that occurred suspiciously close to upcoming earnings dates'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_latest_trades' or 'get_trades_by_insider' by focusing on temporal proximity to earnings events, not just retrieving trades.

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 for detecting 'potential information asymmetry' around earnings dates, suggesting context for regulatory or investigative scenarios. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_congressional_trades' or 'search_insider', nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites for use.

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