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 the batch-processing constraint ('multiple stocks at once') and input format requirement ('comma-separated symbols'), which provides useful context beyond annotations. However, it doesn't describe rate limits, error handling, or response format details.

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 serve a clear purpose: the first states the tool's function, and the second specifies the input format. There is zero wasted language, and it's front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 (single parameter, read-only operation), the presence of annotations covering safety, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It could be slightly improved by mentioning the sibling tool 'stock_quote' for contrast, but it adequately covers the essential context.

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 schema fully documenting the 'symbols' parameter's purpose, format, and type. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating value.

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 verb ('Get quotes') and resource ('multiple stocks'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'stock_quote' (singular) and 'crypto_price' (different asset class). It precisely defines the scope as batch retrieval for stock symbols.

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 implicitly suggests using this tool when needing quotes for multiple stocks simultaneously, but does not explicitly state when to choose it over alternatives like 'stock_quote' for single symbols or 'crypto_price' for cryptocurrencies. It provides clear context but lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives.

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