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. It states what the tool returns (technical indicators) but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, data sources, freshness of data, or error conditions. For a financial data tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral transparency.

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 purpose, followed by a clear 'Args:' section with parameter details. Every sentence earns its place, though the structure could be slightly more polished (e.g., using bullet points instead of plain text for parameters).

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 (3 parameters, financial calculations), no annotations, but with an output schema (which means return values are documented elsewhere), the description is somewhat complete. It covers the purpose and parameters adequately but lacks behavioral context and usage guidance relative to siblings. The presence of an output schema helps, but the description should still address when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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 must compensate, and it does well by explaining all three parameters: ticker (stock symbol with examples), period (data period with options and default), and interval (bar interval with options and default). The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema, though it could provide more context about what these parameters affect in the calculations.

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: 'Get technical indicators for a stock' with specific examples (RSI, MACD, ATR, EMAs, Fibonacci levels). It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('technical indicators for a stock'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_trend_score' or 'get_support_resistance' which might overlap in technical analysis functionality.

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. With sibling tools like 'get_trend_score', 'get_support_resistance', and 'analyze_trades', there's no indication of how this tool's technical indicators differ or when it's preferred. The description only lists parameters without contextual usage advice.

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