Schwab MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what information is returned but doesn't address important behavioral aspects such as whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'get'), potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or response format. The description adds some context about content but lacks operational transparency.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and scope. It front-loads the main action ('get schema information') and includes relevant details without redundancy. Every part of the sentence contributes meaning, though it could be slightly more concise by removing 'like volume profile' which is somewhat extraneous.

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 has no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides a basic understanding of what the tool does. However, it lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., safety, performance) and doesn't explain the return format or structure. For a schema retrieval tool, more information about the output (e.g., JSON structure, example response) would enhance completeness, but the absence of an output schema means the description doesn't fully compensate.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (though trivial since there are no parameters). The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, which is correct for a parameterless tool. It adds value by explaining what schema information is retrieved without needing to compensate for parameter documentation gaps.

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 schema information') and resources ('market data tables'), including what information is retrieved (column definitions, available data, example SQL queries). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on schema metadata rather than actual data retrieval or queries. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with each sibling tool.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it mentions 'example SQL queries for common analyses,' it doesn't specify when this tool is appropriate compared to direct querying tools like 'query_market_data' or data retrieval tools like 'get_quote.' There are no explicit when/when-not statements or named alternatives.

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