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 for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the return type ('matching names'), it lacks details on behavioral traits such as search algorithm (e.g., partial/full match, case sensitivity), result limits, pagination, error handling, or performance expectations. This leaves significant gaps 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 extremely concise and front-loaded, consisting of two sentences that efficiently convey purpose and usage without any redundant information. Every sentence earns its place by adding distinct value: the first defines the action, and the second explains the output's utility.

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 tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and usage but lacks details on behavioral aspects like result format, limitations, or error cases. Without annotations or output schema, more context would improve completeness for reliable agent 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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'query' fully documented in the schema as 'Partial or full insider name to search for'. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or formatting rules, so it meets the baseline score for 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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('corporate insiders by name'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_insider_profile or get_trades_by_insider that retrieve different data types. It explicitly mentions the output's intended use ('for use as filters in other tools'), which adds clarity beyond basic search functionality.

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 clear context on when to use this tool: for searching insider names to obtain filters for other tools. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives (e.g., search_ticker for tickers instead of insiders), which prevents a perfect score.

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