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 the tool returns (portfolio data with specific fields) and implies it's a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness (beyond portfolioDate), or error conditions. The description adds basic context but lacks comprehensive behavioral traits.

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 statement, return value details, parameter explanation, and example. It's appropriately sized at 7 sentences. Minor improvements could include bolding key terms or reducing redundancy (e.g., 'portfolio allocation data' appears twice). Overall, it's efficient and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 1 parameter with 0% schema coverage but good description compensation, no annotations, and an output schema exists (implied by 'Returns' section), the description is reasonably complete. It explains the parameter meaning, return structure, and includes an example. However, it could better address behavioral aspects like data sources or limitations to fully compensate for the lack of annotations.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage (no parameter descriptions in schema), but the description compensates fully. It explains the 'instrument_id' parameter as 'Avanza fund ID from search results' and provides a concrete example with '878733'. This adds crucial meaning beyond the bare schema, telling the agent exactly what format and source this parameter requires.

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 fund portfolio holdings and allocation breakdown' with specific details about what it returns (geographic allocation, sector allocation, top holdings). It distinguishes from siblings like get_fund_info or get_fund_description by focusing specifically on portfolio composition rather than general information or descriptions. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all similar siblings.

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 some usage context: 'Useful for understanding what the fund invests in' and includes an example with a specific fund ID. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_fund_info or get_fund_description, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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