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 and succeeds by documenting the return structure: 'Returns {available_fields: string[], available_exchanges: string[], available_countries: string[], sortOrder: string[]}' and clarifying data format with 'All arrays are flat string arrays (field names, not objects).' This compensates for the missing output schema, though it omits details like caching behavior or rate limits.

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 efficiently structured with zero waste: it opens with purpose ('Get available stock screener parameters'), details the return payload structure, clarifies data types ('flat string arrays'), and concludes with actionable next steps ('Next: use screen_stocks'). Every sentence delivers distinct value without redundancy.

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 metadata discovery tool with one optional parameter and no annotations, the description is comprehensive. It compensates for the absent output schema by explicitly documenting return fields and types, explains the data shape, and provides workflow closure by referencing the downstream tool (screen_stocks). It lacks only explicit safety hints (read-only nature), which would be ideal but are inferable from the 'Get' verb.

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 its single 'filter' parameter (documenting the JSONata expression purpose), establishing a baseline score of 3. The description text does not elaborate on parameter semantics, but given the schema's completeness, no additional compensation is necessary.

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 'Get available stock screener parameters' and 'Retrieve the list of available fields and parameters for stock screening,' clearly identifying the verb (Get/Retrieve) and resource (stock screener parameters). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like get_bond_screener_params and get_crypto_screener_params by specifying 'stock,' and differentiates from screen_stocks by clarifying this retrieves configuration metadata rather than performing the screening.

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?

The description provides explicit workflow guidance with 'Next: use screen_stocks with these fields to filter the market,' establishing the correct sequence for market screening operations. While it clearly indicates the relationship to screen_stocks, it does not explicitly contrast with other asset-class screener parameter tools (bond/crypto/ETF variants), relying instead on the 'stock' qualifier in the name for differentiation.

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