AlphaVantage 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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the data type (OHLCV) and output size options, but lacks critical details such as rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness, error handling, or pagination behavior, which are essential for safe and effective use.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose followed by parameter details. The use of a structured 'Args' section enhances readability, though minor formatting issues (e.g., indentation) slightly detract from perfect clarity.

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 (2 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers parameter semantics well but lacks behavioral context (e.g., rate limits, errors). The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but more operational guidance would improve completeness.

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 significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'symbol' is a stock symbol with examples (AAPL, MSFT) and defines 'outputsize' options ('compact' vs 'full') with their date ranges, effectively compensating 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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('daily OHLCV data'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_intraday_prices' or 'get_technical_indicators' beyond the 'daily' timeframe, which prevents a perfect score.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the description implies it's for daily data, it doesn't mention when to choose this over 'get_intraday_prices' (for intraday data) or 'get_technical_indicators' (for derived metrics), leaving the agent without explicit usage context.

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