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. It mentions that the signals are 'statistically rare conditions' and 'precede outsized moves,' which adds some context about the tool's output nature. However, it doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits such as data freshness, rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or whether it performs any destructive actions. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operation.

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, with the first sentence clearly stating the tool's purpose. The additional sentences provide useful context without redundancy. However, the product list could be more efficiently formatted, and some details about signal types are slightly verbose but still relevant.

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 (2 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is partially complete. It explains the tool's purpose and parameter semantics adequately but lacks details on behavioral traits, output format, and usage guidelines relative to siblings. Without an output schema, it should ideally describe what the tool returns, but it only hints at 'rare conditions' without specifying the structure or examples.

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 description adds meaningful context beyond the input schema, which has 0% schema description coverage. It explains that 'product' refers to specific financial instruments (ES, NQ, MES, etc.) and 'target_date' is for scanning signals on a given date, clarifying what these parameters represent. This compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions, though it doesn't detail parameter formats or constraints.

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: 'Scan all 24 rare volatility signals for a given product and date.' It specifies the verb ('Scan'), resource ('rare volatility signals'), and scope ('all 24'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_forecast_today or get_regime, which might also provide market insights.

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 and mentioning that these signals 'precede outsized moves,' suggesting it's for identifying rare market conditions. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_forecast_today or get_event_impact, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites.

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