lynx-mi/lynx-mi-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's behavior as a read operation ('Get', 'Returns') and mentions filtering capabilities and return content. However, it omits details like rate limits, authentication needs, pagination, or error handling, which are important for a tool with multiple parameters and no output schema.

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, followed by filtering options and return details in a single, efficient sentence. Every part earns its place without redundancy, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the tool's purpose, filtering, and return content, but lacks behavioral details (e.g., rate limits, defaults beyond schema) and does not explain the structure of returned trade details or conviction scores, leaving gaps for an agent to infer.

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 all 5 parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by listing filter types (ticker, insider name, signal type, time window) and mentioning conviction scores in returns, but does not provide additional syntax, format, or usage details for parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 ('Get', 'Filter', 'Returns') and resources ('most recent insider trades filed with the SEC', 'trade details including conviction scores'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_trades_by_insider and get_trades_by_ticker by emphasizing recency and multiple filtering dimensions.

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 through its filtering parameters (ticker, insider name, signal type, time window), suggesting when to use it for specific queries. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like get_trades_by_insider or search_insider, and does not mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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