fintools-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 discloses that the tool 'fetches live price and ATR' and 'computes position size, stop, and target,' which gives some behavioral context. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or response format, leaving gaps for a tool with 7 parameters.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first. The parameter details are organized in a clear 'Args:' section, though it could be slightly more concise by integrating defaults more seamlessly.

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 complexity (7 parameters, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains the tool's purpose and parameters well, though it could benefit from more behavioral context. The output schema likely covers return values, reducing the need for that in the description.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides detailed semantics for all 7 parameters, including examples (e.g., 'AAPL, SPY' for ticker), defaults, and explanations (e.g., 'ATR multiplier for stop distance'), adding 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: 'Calculate position size using ATR for automatic stop/target placement.' It specifies the verb ('calculate'), resource ('position size'), and method ('using ATR'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'calculate_position_size' by mentioning ATR-based stop/target placement.

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. It does not mention sibling tools like 'calculate_position_size' or 'get_technical_indicators' for context, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions for usage.

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