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 and discloses the return structure ({last_update, last_price?, codes}), conditional behavior (last_price included only when range is provided), and filtering capabilities. It mentions the 10-code limit for subsequent quote requests.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose but suffers from redundancy, mentioning the get_quotes workflow twice (once referencing an endpoint URL and later referencing the tool by name) and repeating the return structure information. It could be tightened significantly.

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 a formal output schema, the description compensates effectively by documenting the return structure and field conditions. It adequately covers the 6-parameter complexity and positions the tool correctly within the ecosystem of sibling options tools.

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?

Although the input schema has 100% coverage, the description adds value by explaining the relationship between the 'range' parameter and the conditional inclusion of 'last_price' in the output. It also provides concrete examples of option code formats (OPRA:AAPL270617C230.0) that supplement the schema 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 identifies the resource (option contracts) and action (retrieve list) in the second sentence, and distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_options_expiration and get_options_strike by clarifying this returns codes without Greeks. However, the opening 'List available options' is somewhat tautological with the tool name.

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?

Explicitly names alternative tools and their use cases: directs users to get_quotes for pricing/volume, and to get_options_expiration or get_options_strike for chains with Greeks. It establishes a clear workflow: use this tool first to get codes, then other tools for enrichment.

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