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 that the tool returns a list of recent trades with specific fields, which helps understand behavior. However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness (e.g., how 'recent' is defined), or pagination. It adds some value but leaves gaps in behavioral context for a read operation.

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 key information. It avoids unnecessary fluff, but the example could be more concise. Overall, it's efficient with minimal waste, earning a high score.

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, list output), no annotations, and an output schema exists (implied by 'Returns' details), the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, parameter meaning, and return structure, though it could benefit from more behavioral context like data recency or error handling. The output schema 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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by explaining 'instrument_id: Avanza instrument ID from search results', adding crucial context about the parameter's source and format. Since there's only one parameter, this effectively covers it, though more detail on ID format could improve it. Baseline would be lower without this compensation.

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 recent trades for an instrument' with specific details about what it returns (price, volume, timestamp, metadata). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_broker_trade_summary' or 'get_stock_quote' by focusing on individual trade data rather than summaries or quotes. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, keeping it at 4 instead of 5.

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 context ('Useful for understanding recent trading activity') and suggests when to use it, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. For example, it doesn't clarify if this is for real-time vs. historical data or how it differs from 'get_orderbook'. This provides basic implied guidance but misses explicit comparisons.

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