curistat-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool 'combines breadth, momentum, positioning, and structural signals into a single directional view', which gives some context about the calculation method. However, it doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like whether this is a real-time or historical analysis, what the output format looks like, latency expectations, or any rate limits or authentication requirements.

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 appropriately concise with three sentences that each add value. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second lists supported products, and the third explains the signal composition. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured with clearer separation between product list and signal explanation.

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?

For a financial analysis tool with 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'directional bias' means in practical terms, what the output looks like (numeric score, categorical label, etc.), how recent the data is, or any limitations. The description leaves too many open questions for effective tool selection and 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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 2 parameters, the description provides some context about the 'product' parameter by listing supported values (ES, NQ, MES, MNQ, SPX, SPY, QQQ). However, it doesn't explain the 'date' parameter at all or provide format requirements. The description adds value beyond the bare schema but doesn't fully compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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: 'Get directional bias from a 17-component signal aggregate' and specifies the products it works with. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on directional bias rather than events, forecasts, or other signal types. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with specific siblings like 'get_signals' which might be more general.

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 mentions what products it supports but doesn't explain when to choose it over siblings like 'get_signals' or 'get_regime'. There's no mention of prerequisites, timing considerations, or use case scenarios.

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