FinanceKit MCP

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying the required input format ('SYMBOL:SHARES' pairs) and listing the types of analyses returned, but doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like rate limits, data freshness, or error conditions. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 analyses, the second specifies input format and return values. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and key information is front-loaded.

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 (single parameter, read-only operation), the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, how to use it, and what it returns. With annotations covering safety and an output schema presumably detailing the return structure, no additional information is needed for effective use.

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 already documenting the holdings parameter format and providing an example. The description repeats this information in the second sentence but adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what's in the schema. This 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 ('analyze') and resource ('stock portfolio'), listing the exact analyses performed: total value, allocation, performance, and diversification. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like stock_quote (single stock price) or risk_metrics (focused risk analysis) by emphasizing portfolio-level analysis.

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 (analyzing a portfolio's composition and performance) but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives. For example, it doesn't contrast with compare_assets (which might compare specific assets) or risk_metrics (which might focus on risk rather than overall analysis).

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