Avanza MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation ('Get detailed information') but doesn't explicitly state safety aspects like whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, or potential errors. The description adds value by outlining return data categories but lacks behavioral disclosures about permissions or constraints.

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?

Well-structured with a clear purpose statement, usage guideline, parameter explanation, return details, and example. Slightly verbose in listing return categories, but each section adds value. The front-loaded purpose and guideline sentences are effective.

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 and an output schema exists, the description does well by explaining the parameter's semantics and outlining return data categories. It could improve by mentioning authentication needs or error cases, but it's largely complete for a read-only tool with sibling context.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'instrument_id' is an 'Avanza instrument ID from search results,' clarifying its source and format beyond the schema's string type. However, it doesn't detail validation rules or example formats beyond the single example, leaving some ambiguity.

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 detailed information') and resource ('about a specific stock'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_stock_quote (price only) or get_company_financials (financial statements). It lists comprehensive data categories (price, volume, metrics, description) that establish its unique scope.

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?

Explicitly instructs to 'Use search_instruments() first to find the instrument_id for a stock,' providing clear prerequisite guidance. It distinguishes from search_instruments (which finds IDs) and implies when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_stock_quote (less detailed) by emphasizing 'comprehensive' data.

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