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 states the tool provides 'real-time quotes' but doesn't cover critical aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness, error handling, or response format. For a data-fetching tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operation.

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 key information ('Get real-time quotes for multiple symbols at once'). It wastes no words and directly communicates the core functionality, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 that fetches market data. It doesn't explain what the quotes include (e.g., price, volume), how results are returned, or any limitations. For a tool with no structured behavioral or output information, the description should provide more context to be fully helpful.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'symbols' parameter clearly documented as 'List of ticker symbols'. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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') and resource ('real-time quotes for multiple symbols'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_quote' (singular) or 'query_market_data', which might offer similar functionality. The description is specific about batch processing ('multiple symbols at once') but lacks sibling distinction.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or compare it to siblings like 'get_quote' (which might handle single symbols) or 'query_market_data' (which could offer broader market data). Usage context is implied by the batch nature but not explicitly stated.

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