fintools-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it provides live data (not historical), calculates P&L conditionally, and handles optional parameters. However, it lacks details on rate limits, error conditions, or data sources, which are important for a financial data tool.

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 perfectly structured: a clear purpose sentence front-loaded, followed by a well-formatted Args section with bullet points. Every sentence adds value—no repetition or fluff—making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, but with output schema), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, parameters, and conditional behavior (P&L). The output schema handles return values, so no need to explain those. However, it could briefly mention what 'greeks' includes (e.g., delta, gamma) for clarity.

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 adds significant meaning: it explains option_symbol requires OCC format with examples (e.g., AAPL260406P00250000) and clarifies entry_price enables P&L calculation and is optional. This goes well beyond the bare schema, though it could specify units for entry_price (e.g., dollars per contract).

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 specific action ('Get a live quote + greeks') and resource ('for a specific option contract'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_stock_quote (for stocks) and analyze_options_chain (for chains rather than individual contracts). It precisely defines the tool's function with no ambiguity.

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 clear context for usage: 'for a specific option contract' and 'with P&L if entry price provided'. It implicitly distinguishes from get_stock_quote (stocks vs. options) and analyze_options_chain (single contract vs. chain analysis), but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives, preventing a perfect score.

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