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. It indicates this is a read operation ('Retrieve') and lists the specific data fields returned, which helps compensate for the missing output schema. However, it lacks details on rate limits, data freshness, error conditions, or what 'session corrections' specifically entails.

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 consists of two sentences, but the first ('Trading session information.') is a sentence fragment that merely restates the concept without adding value. The second sentence contains the actual operative content. The structure is front-loaded with fluff rather than substance.

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 tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It compensates for the missing output schema by listing the data fields returned (holidays, timezone, etc.), but given the lack of annotations, it should provide more operational context or usage prerequisites.

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, documenting both the symbol format (Exchange:Symbol) and the JSONata filter syntax. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, meeting the baseline expectation for high schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and clearly identifies the resource (trading session details). It enumerates specific data points returned (holidays, trading hours, timezone, session corrections), which distinguishes it from siblings like get_quotes or get_symbol_history. However, it lacks explicit differentiation from get_symbol_info.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_symbol_info or get_symbol_history. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual recommendations provided.

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