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. It mentions what the tool returns ('key levels, expected behavior windows, and actionable setups') and that it's based on 'volatility forecast and regime,' but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like whether it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what happens with invalid inputs. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.

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 sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by product list and return details. It avoids unnecessary fluff, though the product list could be more integrated. Every sentence adds value, making it efficient.

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 no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and returns, but lacks details on parameters, error handling, authentication, or output structure. For a tool with 2 parameters and market analysis complexity, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It implies a 'product' parameter by listing products, but doesn't explain the 'date' parameter or default behaviors. The description mentions 'today' but doesn't clarify if 'date' overrides this or how null dates are handled. With 2 parameters and no schema descriptions, the added meaning is minimal.

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 full session planner with pattern-driven trade setups for today.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('session planner'), and lists the products covered. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_forecast_today or get_signals, which may provide overlapping 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. It mentions 'today' and specific products, but doesn't explain how this differs from siblings like get_forecast_today (which might provide forecasts) or get_signals (which might provide trade signals). No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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