AlphaVantage 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 of behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns real-time or historical data, or what format the output takes. The description lacks crucial behavioral context for effective tool invocation.

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 brief and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first followed by parameter details. The two-sentence structure is efficient, though the Args section formatting could be cleaner. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 (financial data retrieval), no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameter but lacks behavioral details and usage guidance. The output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but more context on data scope and constraints 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 meaningful context for the single parameter by providing an example ('AAPL, MSFT'), which helps clarify the expected format. However, with 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this is adequate but minimal—it doesn't explain constraints like valid symbol formats or time period defaults.

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 ('company income statement data'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_balance_sheet' or 'get_cash_flow' which also retrieve financial statements, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this specific tool.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'get_balance_sheet' and 'get_cash_flow' available, there's no indication of when income statement data is specifically needed versus other financial statements, nor any mention of prerequisites or constraints for usage.

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