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 and successfully discloses key behavioral traits: it includes the complete return schema inline (compensating for no output_schema), explains that last_price is only returned when using date ranges, and clarifies that this tool returns greeks/theoretical prices but not real-time market data (which requires a separate get_quotes call).

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 contains redundant sentences (repeating the expiration/from/to logic twice) and starts with a tautological phrase ('Option chain by expiration' followed by 'Retrieve option chain data by expiration'). However, the inline return schema, while verbose, is useful given the lack of output_schema, and the overall length is appropriate for the complexity.

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?

For a complex financial tool with 9 parameters and no annotations, the description is nearly complete. It includes the return structure, documents the two-step workflow (chain retrieval then quote retrieval), and references relevant siblings. Minor gaps include missing rate limit information and no mention of the filter parameter's JSONata syntax examples, but these are acceptable omissions given the schema coverage.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description largely restates the mutual exclusivity logic already present in the schema (expiration vs from/to). It adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, though the example option code format (OPRA:AAPL270617C230.0) in the context of get_quotes usage indirectly helps clarify the code parameter format.

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 retrieves option chain data by expiration, distinguishing it from siblings like get_quotes (for last price/volume) and get_symbol_series (for historical data). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar sibling get_options_strike, and the opening 'Option chain by expiration' is somewhat telegraphic.

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 guidance on when to use alternatives, specifically directing users to get_quotes for last price/volume and get_symbol_series for historical data. It clearly explains the mutual exclusivity logic between the expiration parameter and from/to date range parameters, and notes the 10-code limit for subsequent quote requests.

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