fintools-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the algorithm ('Detects pivot points, clusters nearby levels, counts touches, and ranks by strength'), which adds valuable context beyond a simple 'get' operation. However, it lacks details on performance (e.g., computation time), error handling (e.g., invalid tickers), or output format hints, leaving gaps for a tool with algorithmic complexity.

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: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a concise explanation of the algorithm, and then a clear parameter section. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy, making it easy for an agent to quickly grasp the tool's function and inputs.

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 (algorithmic analysis with 3 parameters), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is largely complete. It covers the purpose, algorithm, and parameter semantics effectively. However, it could improve by mentioning sibling tool relationships or behavioral aspects like data freshness, but the output schema reduces the need for return value details.

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?

The description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains 'ticker' with an example ('AAPL, SPY'), defines 'lookback' as 'Number of daily bars to analyze' with a default interpretation ('120 = ~6 months'), and clarifies 'max_levels' as 'Maximum levels per side — support and resistance' with a default. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it doesn't cover all potential nuances like ticker format constraints.

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: 'Find key support and resistance levels for a stock from swing highs/lows.' It specifies the verb ('Find') and resource ('support and resistance levels for a stock'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_stock_quote' or 'get_technical_indicators' by focusing on pivot point analysis. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'find_breakouts' or 'get_trend_score', which might also involve price level 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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'find_breakouts' (which might identify breakouts of support/resistance) or 'get_trend_score' (which could assess trend strength related to these levels). There's no context on prerequisites, such as needing historical price data, or exclusions, like not working for non-equity assets.

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