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 discloses key behavioral traits: real-time nature, data structure (buy/sell sides with prices/volumes), and timestamping. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness guarantees, or potential errors.

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 efficiently organized: purpose statement first, followed by utility context, parameter documentation, return value details, and a concrete example. Every sentence adds value with no redundant information.

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, real-time market data), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return value documentation), the description is quite complete. It covers purpose, usage context, parameter meaning, and includes an example. The main gap is lack of behavioral constraints like rate limits.

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 beyond the schema. While the schema only shows 'instrument_id' as a required string, the description specifies it's an 'Avanza instrument ID' and provides an example value ('5269'). With 0% schema description coverage, this significantly compensates for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 real-time order book depth') and resource ('for an instrument'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_stock_quote (single price) or get_recent_trades (historical trades). It explicitly mentions what the tool provides: buy/sell orders with prices and volumes at each level.

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 for when to use this tool ('Useful for understanding market depth, liquidity, and bid-ask spread'), which differentiates it from other market data tools. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the siblings.

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