Local Stock Analyst MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes what data is returned but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it's a real-time or delayed quote, rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or data freshness. This leaves significant gaps for a financial data tool.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the key information (getting extended quote fields) and lists specific data points. There's no wasted wording, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 complexity of financial data tools, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, data sources, or how it differs from siblings, leaving the agent with insufficient context for reliable use.

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 input schema has 1 parameter (symbol) with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It doesn't mention the symbol parameter at all, but since there's only one parameter and its purpose is implied by the tool name, the description's focus on output fields provides some context. Baseline would be lower for multiple undocumented parameters.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('extended quote fields'), specifying the data points included (open, high, low, previous close). It distinguishes from siblings like get_stock_price by indicating extended fields, but could be more explicit about what makes it different from get_candles or get_key_financials.

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 like get_stock_price (basic price), get_candles (historical data), or get_key_financials (financial metrics). The description implies it's for extended quote data but doesn't specify use cases or exclusions.

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