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 effectively explains key behaviors: it scans and filters stocks, uses a Trend Score range (-100 to +100), and defaults to 'sp500' universe with a max results limit. However, it does not cover aspects like rate limits, error handling, or data freshness, which are important for a screening tool. The description adds substantial context but leaves some behavioral traits unspecified.

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 purpose statement, scanning details, and a parameter section. Every sentence adds value, such as explaining the Trend Score range and parameter defaults. However, it could be slightly more front-loaded by moving key behavioral details earlier, and the parameter explanations are verbose but necessary given the lack of schema descriptions.

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 complexity (10 parameters, no annotations, 0% schema coverage) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, usage, parameters, and key behaviors like scoring. However, it lacks details on output format (implied by the output schema) and could mention performance considerations or data sources for a screening tool, leaving minor gaps.

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 fully compensate. It provides detailed semantics for all 10 parameters, including explanations of what each parameter does (e.g., 'rsi_max: Maximum RSI to filter for oversold stocks'), examples (e.g., 'e.g. 30'), and interactions (e.g., 'tickers overrides universe'). This goes well beyond the basic schema, making parameter usage clear and actionable.

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 ('screen stocks against technical criteria') and resources ('S&P 500 top 100 or custom tickers'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_stock_quote' or 'get_technical_indicators' by focusing on filtering rather than retrieval or calculation. It explicitly lists the types of criteria (oversold bounces, trending stocks, volume spikes) and the scoring system used.

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 when to use this tool (e.g., for screening based on technical indicators like RSI and trend scores) and implies alternatives by mentioning specific criteria, but it does not explicitly name when not to use it or point to sibling tools like 'find_breakouts' or 'compare_tickers' for related tasks. The guidance is sufficient for typical use cases but lacks explicit exclusions.

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