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 explains the tool's primary behavior (fetching and loading data into a database) and mentions the need for subsequent querying, but lacks details about permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what 'loading' entails (e.g., overwriting existing data, appending). It doesn't contradict annotations, but could provide more operational context.

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 extremely concise and well-structured in just two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose and differentiation, while the second provides usage guidance and workflow. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

For a tool with 8 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides good contextual completeness. It explains the tool's purpose, differentiation, and workflow. However, it could be more complete by mentioning what happens after loading (e.g., confirmation message, error handling) or prerequisites, though the lack of annotations means some behavioral gaps remain.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any specific parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain how 'period' interacts with 'period_type' or provide examples). Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('fetch price history' and 'load into SQL database') and distinguishes it from sibling tools by explicitly mentioning 'use this instead of get_price_history'. It identifies the resource (price history) and the transformation (loading into SQL database).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('when you need to analyze the data with SQL') and when not to use it (instead of get_price_history). It also specifies the workflow by mentioning the subsequent tool to use ('After loading, use query_market_data to run SQL queries').

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