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 describes what the tool does (aggregates and shows insider money flow) but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, data freshness, or output format. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency about how it behaves operationally.

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, front-loaded with the core functionality and followed by explanatory context. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff, making it highly efficient and easy for an agent to parse 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 no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose but lacks details on behavioral aspects like data sources, update frequency, or error handling. For a tool with one parameter and high schema coverage, it's minimally viable but could be more complete by addressing operational context.

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 the single parameter 'days' documented in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as valid ranges or effects on aggregation. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to.

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 ('aggregate', 'shows') and resources ('insider money flow by sector'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_congressional_trades or get_insider_profile by focusing on sector-level aggregation rather than individual trades or profiles. It explains the output's significance as a leading indicator of sector rotation, adding valuable context.

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 sector rotation based on insider activity, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_market_sentiment or get_top_movers. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool's focus on insider money flow by sector.

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