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 what data is returned (e.g., description text, heading, category explanation) but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or data freshness. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational behavior.

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 and front-loaded, starting with a clear purpose statement followed by details on what it provides, args, returns, and an example. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and the example enhances clarity. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema (which covers return values), the description is largely complete. It explains the purpose, parameter semantics, and return structure adequately. However, the lack of annotations means some behavioral aspects (e.g., safety, performance) are undocumented, slightly reducing completeness for agent use.

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 for the single parameter by specifying that instrument_id is an 'Avanza fund ID from search results', which clarifies its source and format beyond the schema's basic string type. With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this compensation is effective, though it could be more detailed (e.g., explaining ID format or validation).

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 ('Get detailed fund description and category information') and resources ('fund'), making it immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_fund_info or get_fund_holdings by focusing on textual descriptions and category classification rather than numerical data or holdings. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all similar tools, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 implies usage by specifying that instrument_id comes 'from search results', suggesting this tool should be used after a search. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like get_fund_info or get_stock_info, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The context is clear but lacks detailed comparative instructions.

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