InsightSentry MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It comprehensively documents return value structures (both standard and abbr=true formats), warns about field variability ('Not all bar types include the same fields'), discloses pagination limits ('one month of data per call'), and explains archive depth ('20 years+').

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. While lengthy due to inline JSON examples of return formats, this is necessary given the absence of a formal output schema. Every sentence conveys critical behavioral constraints or return format details with minimal 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?

Given the tool's complexity (10 parameters, nested return objects, pagination requirements) and lack of structured output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers return formats, pagination strategy, sibling alternatives, field variability warnings, and archive limitations—all essential for successful agent invocation.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds valuable usage semantics beyond the schema, specifically the iteration pattern for start_date ('Iterate start_date (YYYY-MM) for longer ranges') and clarifies the relationship between bar_type and available fields in the response series.

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 opens with a specific verb phrase ('Retrieve historical data') and clearly defines the resource scope ('intra-day historical data', 'second/minute/hour'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling 'get_symbol_series' by stating it supports 'second/minute/hour bars only' and contrasting use cases (archive vs. recent data).

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 alternative tools with clear conditions: 'for daily/weekly/monthly, use get_symbol_series' and 'For recent data (up to 30k bars) use get_symbol_series instead.' Also includes pagination guidance ('Returns one month of data per call. Iterate start_date...') which is critical for correct invocation.

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