InsightSentry MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and successfully discloses return structure (pagination fields, data array contents) and workflow dependencies. However, it omits explicit declaration of read-only safety, rate limits, or error handling behavior beyond the schema's ignore_invalid parameter.

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?

Information-dense but well-structured with clear logical flow: purpose → return format → workflow → example. Every element serves a necessary function, particularly the inline return structure JSON which compensates for missing output schema. Slightly cluttered but justified by information 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 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately compensates by documenting the complete response structure, pagination behavior, and required prerequisite call. Minor gap in not describing error states when prerequisite is skipped or rate limiting concerns.

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% coverage (baseline 3). The description adds significant value through a concrete JSON example showing valid field values and structure, plus clarifies the discovery workflow dependency for populating the fields parameter, which aids agent reasoning beyond raw schema definitions.

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?

Description explicitly states 'Retrieve bond data based on specified filter criteria' with specific resource (bonds) and action (retrieve/screen). The 'Bond Screener' header and reference to bond-specific parameters clearly distinguishes from sibling screeners (screen_stocks, screen_crypto, screen_etfs).

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 two-step workflow: '1) Call get_bond_screener_params to discover available fields. 2) POST with your chosen fields.' This clearly dictates when to use the sibling discovery tool versus this screening tool, establishing a mandatory prerequisite relationship.

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