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. It clearly describes what data is returned (historical dividend information) and the read-only nature is implied by 'Get' and 'Returns'. However, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether there are rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness, or error conditions for invalid instrument IDs.

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, returns, examples) and front-loads the core purpose. While comprehensive, some sentences like 'Useful for income investors and dividend analysis' could be considered slightly redundant given the tool's obvious purpose, but overall it's efficiently organized.

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 (single parameter, historical data retrieval), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema (implied by the Returns section), the description provides good coverage. It explains the parameter source, shows usage examples, and documents the return structure. The main gap is lack of behavioral constraints disclosure.

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 provides excellent parameter semantics despite 0% schema description coverage. It clearly explains that 'instrument_id' is an 'Avanza instrument ID from search results' and shows a concrete example ('5479'). This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions and gives the agent crucial context about where to obtain valid parameter values.

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 historical dividend data for a stock' with specific details about what data is returned (dividend history by year including amounts, dates, and yields). It distinguishes from siblings like get_stock_info or get_stock_analysis by focusing specifically on dividends, but doesn't explicitly contrast with all sibling tools.

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 implied usage context: 'Useful for income investors and dividend analysis' and shows an example with a specific instrument ID. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_stock_info (which might include dividend data) or get_company_financials, nor does it mention prerequisites like needing to first search for instrument IDs.

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