Local Stock Analyst MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Get latest traded stock price' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify data freshness (real-time vs. delayed), rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what 'latest' means in practical terms. The description provides basic intent but lacks operational context.

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, focused sentence that efficiently communicates the core functionality without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter and gets straight to the point.

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?

For a simple price lookup tool with good schema coverage but no annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks important context about data characteristics, limitations, and differentiation from sibling tools. The agent would need to infer or test behavioral details.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'symbol' well-documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides about ticker symbol format and constraints. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 action ('Get latest traded stock price') and resource ('for a ticker symbol'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its siblings like 'get_quote' or 'get_candles', which likely provide related but different financial data.

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 like 'get_quote' or 'get_candles'. It states what the tool does but offers no context about when this specific price retrieval is appropriate compared to other financial data tools available.

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