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 mentions retrieving 'all trades' and tracking patterns, but doesn't disclose critical traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness, or what happens if no trades are found. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 purpose and followed by a brief usage hint. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy, making it appropriately sized and efficient.

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 (a query tool with 3 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral traits, output format, or error handling. For a tool with no structured support, this is adequate but has clear gaps, meeting the minimum viable standard.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents all parameters (insider_name, days, limit) with their types and defaults. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining trade-offs or usage nuances. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('all trades by a specific corporate insider across all companies'), making the purpose explicit. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_trades_by_ticker' or 'search_insider', which might have overlapping functionality, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 includes 'Useful for tracking an executive's full trading pattern,' which implies a context for when to use this tool. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'get_trades_by_ticker' or 'search_insider', nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites, so the guidance is only implied.

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