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 compensates by documenting the complete return structure inline ('→ Returns {current_page...}'), including pagination behavior (has_more, current_page) and the platform-specific 'EXCHANGE:SYMBOL' format. It warns against guessing codes but does not mention error states or rate limiting, preventing a perfect score.

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 opening sentence is unnecessarily repeated. The use of arrow notation (→) and ALL CAPS sections creates a somewhat cluttered, stream-of-consciousness structure. However, every sentence beyond the initial repetition earns its place by conveying workflow, return types, or platform-specific formatting rules.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema and annotations, the description is comprehensive. It documents return values, explains the pagination mechanism, clarifies the platform-specific symbol format (InsightSentry's EXCHANGE:SYMBOL), and maps the tool's relationship to 20+ sibling tools. Sufficient for a complex search utility with multiple filter dimensions.

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 explaining parameter interaction logic ('leave query empty' to filter by type/country) and providing concrete query syntax examples ('EXCHANGE:') that supplement the schema's generic 'Search query string' description for the query 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 this as a symbol search/lookup tool and distinguishes it from sibling data-retrieval tools (get_quotes, get_symbol_series) by positioning it as the necessary first step to find codes. The opening repetition ('Search for symbols. Search for Symbols.') is tautological and slightly reduces clarity, but the overall purpose is well-established through the workflow guidance and return value documentation.

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 when-to-use ('ALWAYS start here to find the correct symbol code') and when-not-to-use ('unless you already know the correct symbol code'). Names specific sibling tools to use afterwards ('Use the returned code with get_quotes, get_symbol_series...'). Includes specific query syntax examples ('EXCHANGE:') for different use cases, creating a complete usage map.

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