InsightSentry MCP

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It successfully discloses the 'relatively recent' scope limitation and provides the complete return structure {base_code: string, contracts: [...]} since no output schema exists. It implies read-only behavior via 'Retrieve' and 'List', though an explicit safety declaration would strengthen it further.

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 first two sentences are highly redundant ('List of contracts...' vs 'Retrieve list of contracts...'). While the return structure JSON is valuable given no output schema, the description could be tightened by merging the first two sentences. The third sentence is efficient and high-value.

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 the lack of output schema, the description adequately compensates by documenting the return structure. For a 2-parameter tool with full schema coverage, it provides sufficient domain context (futures-specific) and workflow integration. It appropriately focuses on what the tool returns rather than repeating parameter details already covered by the schema.

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 adds value by providing a futures-specific symbol example (CME_MINI:NQH2024) that clarifies the expected format for the 'symbol' parameter beyond the generic 'Exchange:Symbol' schema description. It does not add significant context for the 'filter' parameter.

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 identifies the resource (futures contracts and settlement dates) and distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'futures symbols' (vs generic get_symbol_* tools). However, the opening phrase 'List of contracts' is a grammatical fragment; the clear purpose statement ('Retrieve list...') appears in the second sentence, slightly muddying the front-loading.

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?

Excellent explicit guidance: 'Use a specific contract code (e.g., CME_MINI:NQH2024) with get_symbol_history for deep history.' This clearly delineates when to use this tool (listing available contracts) versus the sibling get_symbol_history (deep history on specific contracts), establishing a proper workflow.

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