fintools-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it describes what the tool calculates, it doesn't mention important behavioral aspects: whether this is a read-only calculation tool (implied but not stated), what the output format will be (though output schema exists), whether calculations follow specific methodologies, or any limitations. For a financial calculation 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?

The description is well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter documentation. Every sentence earns its place, though the formatting with 'Args:' header and bullet-style parameter list could be slightly more concise. The information is front-loaded with the core purpose stated first.

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 (financial calculations with 6 parameters), no annotations, and the existence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose and all parameters thoroughly. The main gap is lack of behavioral context (methodology, limitations), but the output schema will handle return values. For a calculation tool, this is fairly complete though could benefit from more context about the calculation approach.

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 semantic explanations for all 6 parameters. Each parameter gets a brief but meaningful description that adds value beyond the schema's titles: 'Stock symbol' for ticker, 'Planned entry price' for entry_price, 'Stop loss price' for stop_price, 'Profit target price' for target_price, 'Account equity in dollars (default $100,000)' for account_size, and 'Max risk as % of account (default 1.5%)' for risk_pct. This is excellent compensation for poor schema coverage.

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 with specific verbs ('calculate position size and risk/reward') and identifies the resource ('for a trade idea'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'analyze_trades' or 'calculate_atr_position' by focusing specifically on position sizing calculations rather than analysis or alternative sizing methods.

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. While it's clear this calculates position sizing, there's no mention of when to choose this over sibling tools like 'calculate_atr_position' (which likely uses ATR-based sizing) or 'analyze_trades' (which might include position sizing as part of broader analysis). No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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