fintools-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states what the tool does, not how it behaves. It doesn't disclose rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness, error conditions, or what 'identify opportunities' means. For a financial analysis tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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?

Perfectly structured with purpose statement followed by clearly formatted parameter documentation. Every sentence earns its place - the first sentence establishes purpose, the Args section efficiently documents all parameters with examples and defaults.

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 (options chain analysis), no annotations, but with output schema present, the description covers parameters well but lacks behavioral context. The presence of output schema means return values don't need explanation, but more operational context would help.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing clear semantics for all 5 parameters: ticker format, expiration format and default behavior, and meaning of all filter parameters with defaults. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.

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 states the tool's purpose: 'Analyze an options chain' with specific objectives like finding liquid contracts, assessing IV, and identifying opportunities. It distinguishes from siblings like get_option_quote (single quote) or screen_stocks (stocks not options), but doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings.

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 implies usage for options chain analysis, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives like get_option_quote (single contract) or compare_tickers (multi-ticker comparison). The context is clear but lacks specific when/when-not instructions.

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