FinanceKit MCP

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds valuable context: it lists specific indicators calculated (RSI, MACD, etc.), pattern detection capabilities, and that it returns indicators with values plus a plain-English summary. This goes beyond annotations by detailing the analysis scope and output format.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by specific details. It's concise with no wasted sentences, though it could be slightly more streamlined by combining some indicator lists.

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 complexity, annotations cover safety (read-only), schema fully describes inputs, and an output schema exists (implied by 'Has output schema: true'), the description is complete. It clearly explains what the tool does, what it returns, and the analysis scope, compensating for any gaps.

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 descriptions for 'symbol' and 'period'. The description doesn't add meaning beyond the schema, as it doesn't explain parameter interactions or usage nuances. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema adequately documents parameters.

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 verb 'Run' and resource 'technical analysis on a ticker', specifying it calculates multiple indicators (RSI, MACD, etc.) and detects patterns. It distinguishes from siblings like 'price_history' or 'stock_quote' by emphasizing comprehensive analysis rather than basic data retrieval.

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 technical analysis of a ticker, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'stock_quote' for price data or 'risk_metrics' for risk assessment. No exclusions or specific contexts are provided beyond the general purpose.

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