Fabits MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Get[s]' details, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't mention authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or response format. For a tool that likely accesses sensitive financial data, this lack of transparency is a significant gap, though it doesn't contradict any annotations.

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 ('Get comprehensive deep-dive details about a specific mutual fund'). It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, making it easy for an AI agent to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes directly 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 the complexity of financial data tools, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'comprehensive deep-dive details' include (e.g., performance metrics, risk ratings), how results are structured, or any prerequisites like user authentication. For a tool in a suite with many siblings, more context is needed to ensure proper usage.

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 clear documentation for both parameters (user_id and fund_id). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying the tool fetches details for a 'specific mutual fund' (matching fund_id). This meets the baseline of 3, as the schema adequately covers parameter meanings without needing extra explanation in the description.

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 ('comprehensive deep-dive details about a specific mutual fund'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from siblings like 'fabits_search_funds' (searching) and 'fabits_get_star_funds' (listing star funds) by focusing on detailed information for a single fund. However, it doesn't explicitly mention what details are included, keeping it from a perfect 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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the description implies it's for detailed fund information, it doesn't specify scenarios (e.g., after selecting a fund from search results) or contrast with siblings like 'fabits_get_portfolio' (for user holdings) or 'fabits_get_basket_holdings' (for basket details). The lack of usage context leaves gaps for an AI agent.

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