Schwab MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states what data is returned, not behavioral traits. It doesn't disclose whether this is a cached or live feed, rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what happens with invalid symbols. For a real-time data tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose, efficiently lists included data fields without unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place—no redundant phrases or structural waste.

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 one parameter with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately covers the basic purpose but lacks context for a real-time data tool. It doesn't explain return format, error handling, or behavioral nuances, making it minimally viable but with clear gaps in completeness.

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 one well-documented parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (it doesn't clarify symbol format constraints, exchange requirements, or validation rules). The description's mention of 'stock symbol' aligns with but doesn't expand upon the schema.

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 'Get' and resource 'real-time quote for a stock symbol', specifying what data is included (price, bid/ask, volume, fundamentals). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_quotes' (plural) by focusing on a single symbol, but doesn't explicitly contrast with other market data tools like 'get_movers' or 'load_price_history'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_quotes' (plural), 'load_price_history', or 'query_market_data'. The description implies it's for real-time single-symbol quotes but doesn't state exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the tool name alone.

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