InsightSentry MCP

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Documents complete return structure inline (array of objects with field types), discloses document types covered (filings, transcripts, reports), and explains the relationship between returned IDs and subsequent tool calls.

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 distinct information-dense segments: purpose declaration, return structure specification, and usage guidance. No redundant words; front-loaded with action verb and compensates for missing output schema efficiently.

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 100% input schema coverage and absence of output schema, description provides complete inline documentation of return values, parameter relationships, and sibling tool coordination. Adequate for a 2-parameter listing 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?

Schema coverage is 100% (both 'code' and 'filter' fully documented in schema). Description mentions 'symbol' aligning with the code parameter but adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score for high schema coverage.

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?

Specific verb-resource combination ('List documents for a symbol') with clear scope. Explicitly distinguishes from sibling 'get_document' by stating this returns a list of metadata vs. content retrieval.

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 to sibling tool 'get_document' for reading content ('Use the id field with get_document to read content'), clearly delineating when to use the listing tool versus the content retrieval tool.

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