Avanza 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 clearly describes what the tool returns (aggregated broker trading data) and the structure of the output, which is helpful. However, it doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like whether this requires authentication, rate limits, data freshness, or error conditions, leaving significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 well-structured with clear sections (description, Args, Returns, Examples) and front-loads the core purpose. While efficient, the 'Args' section could be slightly more concise by integrating the parameter explanation into the main flow rather than as a separate labeled section, but overall it's appropriately sized with minimal 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 the tool has an output schema (true) and no annotations, the description does a good job explaining the return structure in detail. However, for a financial data tool with institutional implications, it could better address data sources, update frequency, or limitations. The example is helpful but doesn't cover edge cases or error scenarios, leaving some contextual gaps.

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 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It provides excellent parameter semantics by explaining that 'instrument_id' is an 'Avanza instrument ID from search results' and includes a concrete example with '5269'. This adds crucial meaning beyond the bare schema, fully documenting the single required parameter's purpose and format.

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 specific action ('Get broker trade summary') and resource ('showing buy/sell activity'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_recent_trades or get_stock_quote by focusing on aggregated broker-level data rather than individual trades or price quotes. The opening sentence provides a complete verb+resource statement with precise 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 clear context about when to use this tool ('Useful for understanding institutional trading activity'), which implicitly differentiates it from sibling tools that provide different types of financial data. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the siblings, which prevents a perfect score.

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