FinanceKit MCP

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

The annotation 'readOnlyHint: true' already indicates this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful context about what the tool returns (side-by-side comparison of returns, volatility, key metrics) and its purpose (help decide between investment options), but does not disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or data freshness beyond what annotations provide.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the purpose and scope, and the second explains the return value and utility. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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, 100% schema coverage, read-only annotation, and presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough. It covers purpose, usage context, and return value overview, without needing to detail parameters or output specifics that are already documented in structured fields.

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%, with clear documentation for both parameters ('symbols' as comma-separated tickers, 'period' with default and valid values). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format details or constraints, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Compare performance'), resources ('multiple stocks/assets'), and scope ('over a period'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'stock_quote' (single quote) and 'multi_quote' (multiple quotes without comparison) by emphasizing side-by-side analysis of returns, volatility, and metrics for investment decisions.

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: to compare assets for investment decisions. It implies usage over alternatives like 'stock_quote' or 'multi_quote' by focusing on comparative analysis, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives.

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