fintools-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'compare technical setups' implies a read-only analysis operation, the description doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects: what specific technical setups are compared, what the output format looks like (though there's an output schema), whether there are rate limits, authentication requirements, or data freshness considerations.

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 with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. The two-sentence structure is efficient, though the parameter section could be more integrated. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant information.

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 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, but with an output schema present, the description is moderately complete. The output schema means return values don't need explanation, but the description should better address what 'technical setups' encompasses and usage context relative to siblings. For a comparison tool with multiple technical analysis alternatives, more guidance would be helpful.

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 basic semantics for both parameters: 'tickers' as 'List of stock symbols to compare' with an example, and 'period' as 'Data period for analysis' with a default. However, it doesn't explain valid period formats, ticker format constraints, or maximum list size. The description adds value but doesn't fully compensate for the 0% 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: 'Compare technical setups across multiple tickers side by side.' This specifies the verb ('compare'), resource ('technical setups'), and scope ('multiple tickers side by side'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_technical_indicators' or 'get_trend_score' which might provide similar technical analysis.

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. There are multiple sibling tools for technical analysis (e.g., 'get_technical_indicators', 'get_trend_score', 'find_breakouts'), but the description doesn't explain how this comparison tool differs or when it's preferred over individual analysis tools.

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