curistat-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 of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the tool provides a 'quick overview' and lists the types of metrics (vol, regime, key metrics), it doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects like whether this is a real-time or historical snapshot, what data sources are used, refresh rates, or what format the output takes. For a financial data tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 concise and well-structured. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second lists valid products, and the third explains what information is provided. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, and the 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?

Given the complexity of financial market data, no annotations, no output schema, and 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. While it provides basic purpose and parameter context, it doesn't address key aspects like output format, data freshness, error conditions, or how this tool differs from its many siblings. For a tool that presumably returns complex financial metrics, more context would be helpful.

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 adds meaningful context. It lists specific product codes (ES, NQ, MES, etc.) that clarify what the 'product' parameter accepts, which isn't in the schema. It also implies the tool provides 'current' data, giving context for the optional date parameter. However, it doesn't explain the date format or what happens when date is null.

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 a market conditions snapshot for a product' with specific products listed (ES, NQ, etc.) and mentions it provides 'current vol, regime, and key metrics.' This is a clear verb+resource statement. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its many siblings (like get_regime, get_signals, get_session_plan), which all seem related to market analysis.

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. With 9 sibling tools that all appear to provide market-related information (get_regime, get_signals, get_forecast_today, etc.), there's no indication of when this 'snapshot' tool is preferable to more specialized tools. The description mentions what it does but not when it's the right choice.

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