InsightSentry MCP

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided, so description carries full disclosure burden. Compensates well by detailing return structure (available_fields, available_exchanges, sortOrder), data format (flat string arrays vs objects), and domain constraints (no country filter). Could improve by mentioning caching, rate limits, or if results are static vs dynamic.

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?

Information-dense with minimal waste. Front-loads purpose, details return structure inline using arrow notation (slightly informal but efficient), notes format constraints, and ends with actionable next step. Each sentence provides distinct value (purpose, return shape, data types, constraints, workflow).

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?

Appropriate for a single-parameter metadata tool. Compensates for missing output schema by explicitly describing return object structure and array contents. Covers crypto-specific domain logic (no country filtering). Lacking only operational details like rate limiting or freshness of data.

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 100%, providing complete documentation of the optional 'filter' JSONata parameter. Description does not mention the filter parameter, but baseline score of 3 is appropriate since schema fully documents inputs without needing supplementary text.

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 specific action (get/retrieve) and resource (crypto screener parameters/fields). Distinguishes from sibling stock/bond/etf screener param tools by explicitly mentioning 'crypto' and noting the 'No country filter for crypto' constraint. Slightly vague on 'parameters' meaning without reading the return structure, but clarified in subsequent text.

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?

Explicitly directs next step: 'Next: use screen_crypto with these fields,' establishing clear workflow sequencing. Implies when to use (before screening) and implicitly distinguishes from direct screening tools. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' exclusions, but the crypto-specific scope provides clear context for selection.

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