Avanza MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well. It discloses key behavioral traits: real-time nature ('real-time stock quote', 'immediate price information'), data freshness ('real-time status'), and performance characteristics ('lighter weight'). However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions.

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: purpose first, then differentiation, followed by parameter semantics, return values, and an example. Every sentence adds value with zero waste. The bulleted return format is appropriately detailed without being verbose.

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 data), no annotations, but with an output schema (implied by the detailed return description), the description is complete enough. It covers purpose, differentiation, parameter meaning, return structure, and provides an example - addressing all key aspects an agent needs.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It provides meaningful context for the single parameter: 'instrument_id: Avanza instrument ID from search results' clarifies the parameter's purpose and source. The example further illustrates usage. However, it doesn't specify format constraints or validation rules.

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 real-time stock quote') and resources ('current pricing and trading data'). It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tool 'get_stock_info' by stating it's 'lighter weight', providing clear differentiation.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: 'Lighter weight than get_stock_info' tells the agent this is the preferred option for basic quote data. It also specifies the required parameter context ('Avanza instrument ID from search results'), giving clear prerequisites.

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