FinanceKit MCP

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds value by specifying the data source ('CoinGecko IDs') and the purpose of the output ('needed for other tools'), which are not covered by annotations. However, it lacks details on behavioral traits like rate limits, error handling, or pagination, though annotations reduce the burden.

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 two concise sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose and input, the second explains the output's utility. It is front-loaded with essential information and appropriately sized for a simple search tool.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, read-only), rich annotations (readOnlyHint), and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, input context, and output utility, though it could slightly improve by mentioning any limitations (e.g., search precision).

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 the parameter 'query' fully documented in the schema. The description adds minimal semantics by mentioning 'name or symbol' and examples ('solana', 'eth', 'dog'), but this largely overlaps with the schema's description. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Search for a cryptocurrency') and resources ('by name or symbol'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it returns 'CoinGecko IDs needed for other tools'—a unique function not implied by other tool names like crypto_price or crypto_top_coins.

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 usage context by mentioning the query can be 'name or symbol' and that the output is needed for other tools, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., crypto_top_coins for listing top coins or crypto_price for direct pricing). No exclusions or clear alternatives are provided.

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