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 states what the tool does ('get' and 'shows') but lacks critical details: whether this is a read-only operation, how data is sourced or updated, what 'most connected' means (e.g., by degree centrality), or any limitations like rate limits or authentication needs. The description is too vague for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 with two sentences that directly address the tool's function. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds context about 'influential nodes.' There's no wasted verbiage, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., by clarifying 'influential').

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 network analysis and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'most connected' entails (e.g., metrics used, time frame), how results are returned, or any behavioral traits. For a tool that likely returns structured network data, more context is needed to guide effective 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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (since there are no parameters to describe). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so a baseline score of 4 is appropriate. It mentions 'network graph' which implicitly defines the scope but doesn't conflict with the empty schema.

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: 'Get the most connected insiders and companies in the network graph' specifies the verb (get) and resource (network graph nodes). It distinguishes from some siblings like 'get_insider_profile' or 'get_trades_by_ticker' by focusing on network connectivity rather than individual profiles or trades. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_insider_network' which might cover similar ground.

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 'most connected insiders and companies' but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. Given siblings like 'get_insider_network' that might overlap, the lack of comparative guidance is a significant gap.

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