InsightSentry 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 excellently specifies the return structure ({available_fields: string[], ...}) and clarifies data format ('All arrays are flat string arrays'), though it omits error handling or rate limit details.

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?

Efficiently front-loaded with the core action, followed by return type specification and workflow instruction. Minor redundancy between 'Get available...' and 'Retrieve the list...' prevents a perfect 5, but overall structure is tight with every sentence earning its place.

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?

Completely compensates for the lack of output schema by explicitly documenting the return object structure and field types. Given the tool's simple purpose (parameter discovery) and single optional parameter, the description provides sufficient context for correct invocation and result handling.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for the single 'filter' parameter (documented as a JSONata expression). The description adds no additional parameter context, but with complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states the tool retrieves 'available fields and parameters for bond screening' using specific verbs (Get/Retrieve) and clearly distinguishes itself from sibling screener tools (get_stock_screener_params, get_etf_screener_params) by specifying 'bond' in the purpose and return structure.

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?

Provides explicit workflow guidance with 'Next: use screen_bonds with these fields,' clearly indicating this is a prerequisite discovery tool that must be called before the sibling screen_bonds tool, establishing the correct sequence and relationship.

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