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. It mentions the action ('search') and return ('matching tickers'), but lacks details on behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what 'matching' entails (e.g., partial matches, case sensitivity). This is inadequate 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 highly concise and front-loaded: two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second clarifies the return value. Every word earns its place, making it easy to scan and understand 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 is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format (e.g., structure of 'matching tickers'), error cases, or usage constraints. For a search tool with potential complexity (e.g., matching logic), more context is needed to ensure proper agent invocation.

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, with the 'query' parameter documented as 'Partial ticker symbol or company name.' The description adds minimal value beyond this, only restating 'by symbol or company name.' Baseline is 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate with additional context (e.g., examples or format specifics).

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: 'Search for stock tickers by symbol or company name.' It specifies the verb ('search') and resource ('stock tickers'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'search_insider' (which searches for insiders, not tickers). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'get_trades_by_ticker' might involve tickers but is for trades, not searching).

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 doesn't mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts (e.g., vs. 'get_top_movers' for trending tickers or 'search_insider' for insider data). Without such guidance, users might struggle to choose between related tools.

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