sellthenews-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the output is 'concise' and excludes 'per-strike breakdown', which adds some behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose other important traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or what format the summary returns. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in behavioral understanding.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get a concise options exposure summary for a ticker') and adds a clarifying constraint ('no per-strike breakdown'). There is zero wasted verbiage, and every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 has 1 parameter with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides adequate context for a simple lookup tool. It clarifies the scope ('concise summary', 'no per-strike breakdown'), which helps set expectations. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it could benefit from more details on behavioral aspects or return format to be fully complete.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'ticker' well-documented in the schema as 'Stock ticker symbol, e.g. 'MU', 'AAPL', 'TSLA''. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to.

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 a concise options exposure summary for a ticker'. It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('options exposure summary'), and scope ('for a ticker'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'get_options_chain' beyond mentioning 'no per-strike breakdown', which is helpful but not a full distinction.

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 implies when to use this tool by stating 'no per-strike breakdown', suggesting it's for a high-level summary rather than detailed strike data. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives like 'get_options_chain' or provide clear when-not-to-use guidance. The context is somewhat clear but lacks explicit sibling comparison.

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