Run DuckDB SQL over loaded Pakistan Stock Exchange tables to answer questions, returning up to 200 rows; aggregate or LIMIT large results and create views/tables.
Run DuckDB SQL over the loaded tables. Returns at most 200 rows as a table; aggregate or LIMIT for large results. You may create views/tables. No file or network access.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sql | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the 200-row result cap, that DDL (creating views/tables) is permitted, and that file and network access are blocked. It stops short of describing error behavior or whether truncation is silent versus flagged.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every clause earns its place by communicating a capability or constraint. No filler.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the one thing the agent most needs to know instead — the 200-row cap — is stated. Capabilities, sandbox limits, and the dialect are all covered, making the definition complete for a one-parameter execution 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?
The single 'sql' parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so by naming the dialect (DuckDB SQL) and the sandbox constraints that bound what SQL is valid (no file/network, DDL allowed), which is meaningfully more than the bare 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?
States a specific verb and resource: run DuckDB SQL over the loaded tables. The scope ('over the loaded tables', the 200-row cap, sandbox restrictions) distinguishes it cleanly from the sibling load_* tools and from list_tables/quote without needing the schema.
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?
It gives usage advice ('aggregate or LIMIT for large results') which tells the agent how to work within the row cap, but never states when to reach for query versus siblings such as list_tables or quote, nor any prerequisites (e.g. that tables must be loaded first).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.