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 valuable context beyond this by specifying the exact data returned (OHLCV plus summary statistics) and hinting at the tool's scope (historical data). However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits, data freshness, or authentication needs, which would be helpful given the lack of other annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by specific return details. Both sentences are essential—the first defines the tool's function, and the second clarifies the output format—with zero wasted words, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 (3 parameters, read-only operation), the description is mostly complete. It clearly states what the tool does and what it returns. With an output schema present, the description doesn't need to detail return values, and annotations cover safety. However, it could benefit from more explicit usage guidelines to fully guide the agent in tool selection.

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 all three parameters (symbol, period, interval). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining how period and interval interact or providing examples of valid ticker symbols. This 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 specific action ('Get historical price data') and resource ('for a ticker'), with precise details about what data is returned (OHLCV plus summary statistics). It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'stock_quote' (current price) or 'crypto_price' (current crypto price) by focusing on historical 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 implies usage for historical price analysis but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'stock_quote' for current prices or 'technical_analysis' for derived indicators. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool's name and description alone.

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