FinanceKit MCP

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful context about what data is returned (next earnings date, EPS estimates vs actuals, revenue data) and its importance for event-driven trading, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, data freshness, or error conditions 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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place: the first states the core functionality, and the second explains the return data and usage context. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and wastes no words.

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 that there's an output schema (which handles return values), annotations cover the read-only nature, and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema, the description provides good contextual completeness. It explains what data is returned and the trading context, though it could potentially mention data sources or limitations for a perfect score.

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 single parameter 'symbol' clearly documented in the schema as 'Stock ticker (e.g., 'AAPL')'. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 when 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 ('Get upcoming and recent earnings dates') and resource ('for a stock'), distinguishing it from siblings like stock_quote or company_info by focusing on earnings-specific data. It explicitly mentions what data is returned (next earnings date, EPS estimates vs actuals, revenue data).

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 ('Critical for event-driven trading'), which helps differentiate it from general stock data tools. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings (e.g., stock_quote for price data, company_info for general info).

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