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 effectively. It discloses the return structure (inline JSON), batch constraints for downstream get_quotes calls ('up to 10 codes'), and behavioral nuances like last_price inclusion when range is used. Missing auth requirements and rate limits prevent a 5.

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 is information-dense and front-loaded with purpose, but suffers from redundancy—mentioning the get_quotes 10-code limitation twice in slightly different ways. The inline return schema JSON is bulky but necessary given the lack of structured output schema.

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 an 8-parameter options tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It provides the full return structure inline, explains domain-specific fields (Greeks), and maps the workflow to sibling tools. The contradiction with schema regarding strike/range exclusivity slightly undermines completeness.

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% (baseline 3), but the description adds significant value: concrete option code examples (OPRA:AAPL270617C230.0), clarification that range represents ±N% of current price, and workflow context for using the returned codes. This exceeds the schema's basic descriptions.

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 it retrieves 'option chain data filtered by strike price or price range' with specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly naming get_quotes (for last price/volume) and get_symbol_series (for historical data), though it could better differentiate from list_options or get_options_expiration.

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?

While it provides explicit alternatives (when to use get_quotes vs this tool), it contains misleading guidance stating strike and range can be provided as 'both', which directly contradicts the schema that specifies 'When provided, strike parameter is ignored.' This could confuse agents about parameter interaction.

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