Toolstem MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by detailing the output structure ('agent-ready response with derived signals: margin_trend, health_signal, growth_signal') and analysis scope. It doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or data sources, but provides substantial behavioral context for a read-only 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?

Two well-structured sentences with zero waste. The first sentence details the analysis scope and output format, the second provides usage guidelines. Every element adds value without redundancy.

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 complexity (financial analysis with derived signals), the description provides complete context about what the tool does and when to use it. With an output schema present, it doesn't need to explain return values, and the description adequately complements the structured data.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents the 'symbol' and 'period' parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3.

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 performs 'deep financial analysis' and specifies it 'synthesizes key metrics, financial ratios, income statement, balance sheet, and cash flow statement into one agent-ready response.' It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on comprehensive financial metrics rather than comparison (compare_companies), snapshot overview (get_stock_snapshot), or screening (screen_stocks).

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'for fundamental analysis, financial health checks, or when you need to understand a company's trajectory.' This provides clear context for selection over siblings that serve different purposes like comparison or screening.

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