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 full burden. It states the tool returns data but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness, or format of the heatmap (e.g., JSON structure, image). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 and details without waste. Every part ('Returns a heatmap... showing volume...') directly contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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, no output schema, and a simple single parameter, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the purpose and data elements but lacks details on output format, behavioral constraints, or usage context, making it minimally viable for a read-only tool.

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 already documents the single parameter 'days' with its type, default, and max. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3.

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 specific action ('Returns a heatmap'), resource ('insider trading activity by ticker'), and scope ('showing volume, trade count, net value, and bullish/bearish sentiment for each stock'). It distinguishes from siblings like get_latest_trades (specific trades) or get_insider_profile (individual insider data) by focusing on aggregated visual data across stocks.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. While the description implies it's for aggregated insider trading analysis, it doesn't specify scenarios (e.g., market sentiment analysis, stock screening) or contrast with siblings like get_market_sentiment (broader sentiment) or get_top_movers (price-based movers).

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