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. It mentions the performance window (30/90-day returns) but does not disclose behavioral traits such as data freshness, rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'best' means (e.g., sorted by highest returns). This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely involves data aggregation and ranking.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get the insider trading performance leaderboard') and adds essential context ('which insiders have the best 30/90-day returns after their trades'). Every word earns its place with zero waste.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that returns ranked data. It lacks details on output format (e.g., list structure, fields included), sorting criteria, or handling of ties. For a leaderboard tool with two parameters, this leaves the agent guessing about key behavioral aspects.

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%, with clear parameter descriptions in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying a default focus on 30/90-day returns, which aligns with the 'days' parameter but doesn't provide extra details like format constraints or interaction effects. 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 verb ('Get') and resource ('insider trading performance leaderboard'), specifying what insiders are ranked by ('best 30/90-day returns after their trades'). It distinguishes from siblings like get_insider_rank or get_top_movers by focusing on post-trade returns rather than 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 for analyzing insider performance based on returns, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_insider_rank or get_top_movers. It provides context (30/90-day returns) but lacks explicit guidance on exclusions or prerequisites.

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