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 'Reveals the web of insider relationships,' which implies a read-only operation, but does not specify permissions, rate limits, data freshness, or output format. For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, this is insufficient to inform the agent about key behavioral traits like response structure or constraints.

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 concise and front-loaded, with two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose. There is no unnecessary information, and each sentence contributes to understanding the tool's function. However, it could be slightly improved by integrating usage hints or behavioral details without adding 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 complexity of building a network graph, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, output format, and usage context. While the purpose is clear, the agent would struggle to understand how to interpret results or when to prefer this tool over siblings, making it inadequate for full contextual understanding.

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%, meaning the input schema already documents all parameters well. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, as it does not explain parameter interactions or provide additional context. For instance, it does not clarify how 'depth' affects the graph or what 'connected entities' entail. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles most of the parameter documentation.

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: 'Build a network graph centered on an insider or company, showing all connected entities.' It specifies the verb ('build'), resource ('network graph'), and scope ('centered on an insider or company'), but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'get_network_top' or 'get_insider_profile', which might have overlapping functionality. This makes it clear but not fully distinguished from alternatives.

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 mentions the purpose but does not specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. For example, it does not compare to 'get_network_top' or 'get_insider_profile', leaving the agent to infer usage based on tool names alone. This lack of explicit context reduces its effectiveness in guiding tool selection.

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