curistat-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it returns a rating (1-10), expected move ranges, regime context, and key events. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like data freshness, rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions, which are important for a forecasting tool.

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 well-structured. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second lists products, and the third details return values. Every sentence adds essential information with zero waste, making it easy for an agent to parse 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 the tool's moderate complexity (forecasting with multiple outputs), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a good job covering key aspects: purpose, products, and return values. However, it doesn't fully explain the 'regime context' or 'key events' outputs, leaving some ambiguity about the response structure.

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 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by listing valid products (ES, NQ, MES, MNQ, SPX, SPY, QQQ), which clarifies the 'product' parameter's purpose and acceptable values beyond the schema's minimal title. This significantly improves parameter understanding.

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 today's volatility forecast with a 1-10 rating and expected move ranges.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('today's volatility forecast'), and key outputs (rating, ranges). It distinguishes from siblings like get_forecast_week (different timeframe) and get_regime/get_direction (different focus).

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 implies usage context by listing specific products (ES, NQ, etc.) and mentioning 'today's' forecast, suggesting it's for current-day analysis. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like get_forecast_week (weekly forecast) or get_regime (broader regime context), leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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