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 states what data is returned but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'Get' but not explicit), potential rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or response format. For a financial data tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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 purpose ('Get all positions') followed by specific data fields. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy or wasted phrasing. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool.

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 complexity (financial data retrieval), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return structure, pagination, error handling, or data freshness—critical context for an agent to use this tool effectively. The description alone is insufficient for reliable tool invocation despite good conciseness.

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 input schema fully documents the single optional parameter (account_id). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying the tool operates on an account. Since the schema already provides complete parameter documentation, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate—the description doesn't add value here but doesn't need to compensate for 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 action ('Get all positions') and specifies the data fields returned (cost basis, quantity, market value, gain/loss) for a specific resource (account). It distinguishes from siblings like get_quote or get_quotes by focusing on portfolio positions rather than market data. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., get_instruments might overlap in scope).

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, timing considerations, or compare it to sibling tools like get_instruments or query_market_data. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and description without explicit context.

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