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 describes the return structure comprehensively but doesn't mention important behavioral aspects: whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'Get' but not explicit), rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness, or error conditions. For a financial data tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 (purpose, returns, args, returns details, examples) and front-loaded the core purpose. Every sentence adds value, though the detailed metrics listing in the returns section is somewhat lengthy but informative. The example is helpful and appropriately placed.

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's moderate complexity (financial data retrieval), no annotations, but with an output schema (implied by the detailed returns description), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose, parameter semantics, and return structure comprehensively. The main gaps are behavioral aspects (rate limits, auth) and usage guidelines versus siblings, but the output description reduces the need for return value explanation.

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 description adds meaningful context about the single parameter: 'instrument_id: Avanza instrument ID from search results' clarifies that this is a specific identifier format from the Avanza platform and should come from search results. With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this compensates well by providing the necessary semantic understanding beyond the bare schema type.

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: 'Get company financial statements and metrics' with specific resources (revenue, profits, margins) and time dimensions (year and quarter). It distinguishes from siblings like get_stock_quote or get_stock_info by focusing specifically on financial statements rather than market data or general information. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with get_stock_analysis which might overlap.

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 like needing an instrument_id from search results (though this is implied by the parameter), nor does it differentiate from sibling tools like get_stock_analysis that might provide similar financial insights. The example shows basic usage but lacks contextual guidance.

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