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 by disclosing key behaviors: it searches across multiple instrument types, returns detailed structured results, supports filtering by type, has default values, and includes examples. It doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling, but covers most operational aspects adequately.

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 appropriately sized: it starts with a clear purpose statement, explains scope and returns, then has organized sections for Args, Returns, and Examples. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy, and information is front-loaded with details following logically.

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 (3 parameters, filtering capability), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers purpose, parameters with semantics, return structure with examples, and usage context. The output schema means the description doesn't need to exhaustively document return values, and it provides enough for effective tool selection and invocation.

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 substantial meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% schema description coverage. It explains what 'query' accepts (company name, ticker symbol, or ISIN), details all 'instrument_type' options with descriptions, specifies 'limit' range and default, and provides concrete examples showing parameter usage in context.

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 searches for financial instruments on Avanza across multiple types (stocks, funds, ETFs, certificates, warrants) and returns detailed results including price info, sectors, and metadata. It specifies the verb 'search' and resource 'financial instruments', distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on specific data retrieval like get_stock_info or get_fund_info.

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: to search across multiple instrument types with filtering options. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, but the context implies it's for broad searches rather than retrieving specific instrument data by ID (like get_instrument_by_order_book_id).

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