Schwab MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions search and data retrieval functions but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens with invalid inputs. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality without any wasted words. It directly communicates the tool's purpose in a compact form, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with two parameters and multiple search types. It doesn't explain return values, error handling, or behavioral constraints, which are essential for proper agent usage in this 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%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'symbol or description' and 'fundamental data', which loosely map to parameters but don't provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema specifies.

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 ('search' and 'get') and resources ('instruments' and 'fundamental data'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'get_quote' or 'get_quotes', which might also retrieve instrument-related 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_quote' or 'get_quotes', nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. It implies usage through its functional description but lacks explicit context for selection among siblings.

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