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 of behavioral disclosure. It specifies the forecast type (5-day forward volatility) and product scope, but doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or what the output format looks like. It provides basic operational context but lacks deeper behavioral traits.

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 efficient with just two sentences that each serve distinct purposes: the first states the core function, the second provides product list and parameter guidance. There's zero wasted text, and key information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 2-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic information about what the tool does and its parameters. However, it doesn't explain what the forecast output looks like (values, format, units) or address potential error conditions, leaving gaps in completeness for a forecasting tool.

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, the description must compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation. It explains that 'date' is optional and should be in YYYY-MM-DD format to anchor the forecast, and lists the 7 specific products supported, which clarifies the 'product' parameter's valid values beyond what the schema provides.

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 specific action ('Get') and resource ('5-day forward volatility forecast'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_forecast_today (daily forecast) and get_direction/regime/signals (different analytical outputs). It precisely defines the tool's function without ambiguity.

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 by listing the specific products supported and mentioning the optional date parameter, which helps differentiate it from get_forecast_today (likely for daily forecasts). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or name alternatives among siblings, leaving some guidance implicit.

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