alpaca-mcp-server

Official

by alpacahq

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Remote

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v2.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes, but there is some overlap in data retrieval tools (e.g., get_crypto_bars vs get_crypto_quotes vs get_crypto_trades) that could cause confusion. However, the descriptions clarify the specific data types, and the asset-class separation (stocks, options, crypto) helps reduce misselection.
Naming Consistency5/5
Tool names follow a highly consistent verb_noun pattern throughout, with clear conventions like get_, place_, cancel_, create_, update_, etc. There are no deviations in naming style, making the set predictable and readable.
Tool Count2/5
With 61 tools, the count is excessive for a single server, making it overwhelming and difficult for an agent to navigate efficiently. While the domain (trading and market data) is broad, the tool surface could be better organized or consolidated to reduce cognitive load.
Completeness5/5
The tool set provides comprehensive coverage for trading and market data operations, including full CRUD for orders, positions, watchlists, and account settings, plus extensive data retrieval for stocks, options, and crypto across various timeframes and metrics. No obvious gaps are present for the server's purpose.
Average 3.6/5 across 61 of 61 tools scored. Lowest: 2.9/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 9 of 14 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 11 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
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 states the tool cancels an order but does not explain what 'cancel' entails (e.g., whether it's reversible, if it requires specific order states like 'open', potential side effects, or error conditions). This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to parse and front-loaded with the core action. Every part of the sentence contributes essential information efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavior (e.g., cancellation effects, error handling), usage context, and output expectations, leaving the agent with incomplete guidance despite the simple parameter schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'order_id' documented as a UUID. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema, such as where to find the ID or validation rules, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Cancel') and target resource ('a specific order by its ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'cancel_all_orders' or 'replace_order_by_id', which would be needed for 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'cancel_all_orders' or 'replace_order_by_id', nor does it mention prerequisites such as order status or permissions. It simply states what the tool does without contextual usage information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 'Delete' implies a destructive operation, it doesn't specify whether this action is reversible, what permissions are required, what happens to associated assets, or if there are rate limits. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter and is front-loaded with the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens upon deletion (e.g., whether assets are preserved elsewhere), what the return value might be (success/failure indicators), or error conditions. Given the tool's complexity as a delete operation, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'watchlist_id' documented as a UUID. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (it merely restates 'by its ID'). Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and target resource ('a specific watchlist by its ID'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'remove_asset_from_watchlist_by_id' or 'update_watchlist_by_id', 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'remove_asset_from_watchlist_by_id' (which removes assets from watchlists) or 'create_watchlist' (which creates new watchlists). It also doesn't mention prerequisites or when-not-to-use scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 states the tool submits an instruction, implying a mutation, but doesn't clarify if this is irreversible, requires specific permissions, affects portfolio status, or has side effects like fees. This is inadequate for a tool that likely modifies financial positions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of financial options management, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It misses critical context like behavioral traits (e.g., confirmation process, timing constraints), usage guidelines relative to siblings, and expected outcomes, leaving significant gaps for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'symbol_or_contract_id' documented as 'Option contract symbol or ID.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or context about valid inputs. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('submits a do-not-exercise instruction') and the target resource ('for a held option contract'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'exercise_options_position' beyond the obvious semantic difference, missing an opportunity to clarify the distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, such as 'exercise_options_position' or other position management tools. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., holding an option contract), timing (e.g., near expiration), or exclusions, leaving usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool performs an exercise action, implying a mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, financial implications, irreversibility, or rate limits. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that clearly states the tool's purpose with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects like consequences, error conditions, or return values, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand the tool fully.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'symbol_or_contract_id' documented as 'Option contract symbol or ID.' The description doesn't add meaning beyond this, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('exercises') and resource ('a held option contract'), explaining it converts the option into the underlying asset. It's specific but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling 'do_not_exercise_options_position', which is a clear alternative.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'do_not_exercise_options_position' or 'close_position'. The description implies usage for exercising options but lacks context on prerequisites, timing, or decision criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Retrieves and formats details' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's read-only (implied but not explicit), what data it returns, error conditions (e.g., invalid symbol), or performance considerations. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action. It could be slightly more specific (e.g., mentioning it returns formatted data like quantity or P/L), but it avoids unnecessary words and gets straight to the point.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema (which handles return values) and 100% schema coverage for the single parameter, the description is minimally complete. However, with no annotations and sibling tools like 'get_all_positions', it should better differentiate usage and clarify behavioral aspects to be fully helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'symbol_or_asset_id' documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., examples, format details, or clarification on 'symbol' vs 'assetId'). Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Retrieves and formats') and resource ('details for a specific open position'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_all_positions' or 'close_position', which would require mentioning it's for a single position rather than all positions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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_all_positions' or 'close_position'. It mentions 'specific open position' but doesn't clarify prerequisites (e.g., requires an existing position) or exclusions (e.g., not for closed positions).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. 'Retrieves and formats' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what the output format looks like. The mention of 'formats' is vague and doesn't explain how orders are formatted or structured in the response. For a tool with 11 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with a clear purpose, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness. There's no fluff or redundant phrasing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (11 parameters, no annotations, but with output schema), the description is minimally adequate. The output schema exists, so the description doesn't need to explain return values, but it lacks context on behavioral aspects like authentication, rate limits, or error handling. For a retrieval tool with many filters, more guidance on usage and constraints would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description mentions 'with the specified filters,' which aligns with the 11 filtering parameters in the schema. However, with 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly (e.g., defaults, constraints, examples). The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining filter interactions or typical usage patterns, so it meets the baseline but doesn't enhance understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Retrieves and formats') and resource ('orders'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_order_by_id' or 'get_order_by_client_id', which also retrieve orders but with different approaches. The mention of 'with the specified filters' hints at filtering capability but doesn't explicitly differentiate from those sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_order_by_id' (for single orders by ID) or 'get_order_by_client_id' (for single orders by client ID), nor does it explain that this is for retrieving multiple orders with filtering. There's no context about prerequisites, dependencies, or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. It states the action ('Add') but doesn't explain what happens on success/failure, whether duplicates are allowed, if there are rate limits, permission requirements, or what the output contains. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there's an output schema (which handles return values) and 100% schema coverage for parameters, the description covers the basic purpose adequately. However, for a mutation tool with no annotations, it should provide more behavioral context about what the tool actually does beyond the basic action.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description mentions 'by symbol' which aligns with the 'symbol' parameter, but adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema already provides. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Add') and resource ('asset by symbol to a specific watchlist'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'remove_asset_from_watchlist_by_id' or 'create_watchlist', which would be needed for 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing watchlist), when not to use it, or how it differs from similar tools like 'update_watchlist_by_id' or 'create_watchlist' that might also manage watchlist contents.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. It states the tool creates a watchlist, implying a write operation, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, idempotency, error handling, or what happens on duplicate names. This is insufficient for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that an output schema exists (context signals indicate 'Has output schema: true'), the description does not need to explain return values. However, as a mutation tool with no annotations, it lacks completeness in behavioral aspects like side effects or error conditions. The description is minimally adequate but leaves gaps in understanding tool behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('name' and 'symbols'). The description adds no additional semantic context beyond the schema, such as format examples or constraints (e.g., symbol validation). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Creates a new watchlist with specified symbols.' It uses a specific verb ('creates') and identifies the resource ('watchlist'), but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'update_watchlist_by_id' or 'delete_watchlist_by_id' beyond the creation aspect.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication), compare it to sibling tools like 'update_watchlist_by_id' for modifications, or specify scenarios where creation is appropriate versus retrieval ('get_watchlists').
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. While it indicates this is a read operation ('returns a list'), it doesn't mention pagination behavior (though the schema has page_size and page_token), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens when no parameters are provided. For a tool with 8 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states exactly what the tool does without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a list-retrieval tool and gets straight to the point.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there's an output schema (which handles return values), 100% schema description coverage, and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, for a tool with 8 parameters and complex filtering options, the description could better explain the relationship between parameters (like the mutual exclusivity of activity_types and category) and provide more behavioral context about the listing operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It mentions 'such as fills, dividends, and transfers' which loosely relates to the activity_types parameter, but this doesn't provide meaningful additional semantics beyond the comprehensive enum descriptions in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Returns a list of account activities such as fills, dividends, and transfers.' It specifies the verb ('returns'), resource ('account activities'), and provides examples of activity types. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'get_account_activities_by_type', which appears to be a more specific version of this tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. There's no mention of the sibling tool 'get_account_activities_by_type' or any other filtering tools. The only implied usage is when you need account activities, but no context about when this is the appropriate choice among similar tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. The description only states what the tool returns, without mentioning pagination behavior (implied by parameters but not described), rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what format the returned entries have. For a read operation with 7 parameters, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with good schema documentation and is front-loaded with the essential information. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has an output schema (according to context signals), so the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, with 7 parameters, no annotations, and complex filtering logic (date ranges, pagination, activity types), the description should provide more context about usage patterns, limitations, or relationships to sibling tools. It's minimally adequate but leaves gaps in behavioral understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 7 parameters with their types, formats, constraints, and descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no param info in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'returns' and resource 'account activity entries' with the specific scope 'for a specific type of activity'. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'get_account_activities' by specifying filtering by activity type, though it doesn't explicitly name that sibling. The purpose is clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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_account_activities' (which presumably returns all activity types). It mentions filtering by activity type but doesn't explain when this filtering is appropriate or what the trade-offs are. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 states the tool 'retrieves and formats' information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'formats' entails (e.g., structured output). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('retrieves and formats') and resource ('detailed information about a specific asset'). There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly mentioning the parameter context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (single parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the basic purpose and resource, though it lacks behavioral details that would be needed if no output schema existed. The schema coverage compensates for some gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, fully documenting the single parameter 'symbol_or_asset_id' with details on accepted formats (symbol, assetId, CUSIP for US equities). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
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 ('retrieves and formats') and resource ('detailed information about a specific asset'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_all_assets' which retrieves multiple assets. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other asset-related tools like 'get_stock_snapshot' or 'get_crypto_snapshot' beyond the 'specific asset' scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention when to choose 'get_asset' over other asset-retrieval tools like 'get_stock_snapshot' or 'get_crypto_snapshot', nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The lack of context leaves the agent with minimal usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. It mentions 'retrieves and formats,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior (beyond what's in the schema), or error handling. For a tool with 9 parameters and no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—a single sentence—and front-loaded with the core purpose. There's no wasted verbiage or redundancy, making it efficient for quick comprehension. Every word earns its place by directly stating the tool's function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is minimally adequate. The output schema likely covers return values, reducing the need for the description to explain them. However, for a read operation with multiple filters and pagination, the description lacks context on performance, limitations, or common use cases, leaving room for improvement.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the input schema, which has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all 9 parameters. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. The description doesn't compensate with additional context like examples or usage tips for parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Retrieves and formats corporate action announcements.' It specifies the verb ('retrieves and formats') and resource ('corporate action announcements'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_corporate_action_announcement' or 'get_corporate_action_announcements', which is why it doesn't achieve 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention sibling tools (e.g., 'get_corporate_action_announcement' for single announcements) or specify scenarios where this tool is preferred. Without such context, the agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 'screens the market' but doesn't specify data sources, update frequency, latency, or rate limits. For a market data tool, this omission is significant, as agents need to understand reliability and constraints to use it appropriately.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding, earning a top score for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
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, 100% schema coverage, output schema exists), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks behavioral details (e.g., data freshness, scope) and usage guidelines. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but more context would improve agent effectiveness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear parameter documentation in the input schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, as it only hints at the 'by' parameter options ('volume or trade count') without providing additional context or examples. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Screens the market for most active stocks by volume or trade count.' It specifies the verb ('screens'), resource ('most active stocks'), and criteria ('by volume or trade count'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_market_movers', which might serve a similar purpose, preventing 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_market_movers' or clarify specific use cases, such as real-time analysis or daily summaries. This lack of contextual direction leaves the agent to infer usage, which is insufficient for effective tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. It states this is a retrieval operation but doesn't mention whether it's paginated (though page_token parameter hints at this), what authentication is required, rate limits, error conditions, or what the output contains. For a 14-parameter tool with complex filtering, this is inadequate behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a retrieval tool and front-loads the core functionality without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (14 parameters, filtering capabilities) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. The output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the description should still provide more context about the tool's behavior, typical use cases, and relationship to sibling tools given the rich parameter set.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description mentions 'underlying symbol(s)' which aligns with one parameter, but with 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all 14 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain parameter interactions, default behaviors, or provide usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Retrieves') and resource ('option contracts') with scope ('for underlying symbol(s)'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_option_chain or get_option_contract, but the verb+resource combination is specific enough for basic understanding.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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_option_chain or get_option_contract. There's no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or comparison with sibling tools that might offer similar functionality. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 retrieving latest trades but does not specify data freshness, rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or output format. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice, especially 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to parse quickly, and there is no wasted verbiage or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (retrieving financial data with two parameters) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context on data sources, limitations, or integration with sibling tools, leaving room for improvement in completeness despite the output schema covering return details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, detailing both parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or edge cases. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'retrieves' and the resource 'latest trade for one or more option contracts', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_option_trades' or 'get_option_latest_quote', which could provide similar or overlapping functionality, leaving some ambiguity in sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 such as 'get_option_trades' for historical trades or 'get_option_latest_quote' for quotes. It lacks context on prerequisites, timing, or specific use cases, offering only a basic statement of function without usage instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 retrieving 'historical trade data,' implying a read-only operation, but fails to specify critical details like rate limits, authentication requirements, data latency (e.g., how recent the data is), or pagination behavior (though the schema hints at pagination). This leaves significant gaps for safe and 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly while still conveying the core functionality.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, historical data retrieval) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context on behavioral traits (e.g., rate limits, data freshness) and usage guidelines, which are important for a data-fetching tool with multiple siblings. The schema and output schema cover technical details, but the description doesn't fully compensate for the missing annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with detailed parameter documentation in the input schema (e.g., defaults for 'start', 'end', and 'limit', and pagination notes). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for adequate but not enhanced parameter context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('historical trade data for one or more option contracts'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_option_bars' or 'get_option_latest_trade', which also retrieve option data but with different scopes or formats.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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_option_bars' (for aggregated data) or 'get_option_latest_trade' (for real-time data). It lacks context about prerequisites, such as required permissions or data availability, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. It states the tool retrieves data, implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose important behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or whether it's idempotent. For a tool with 8 parameters and complex time-based logic, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary details. It states exactly what the tool does without redundancy or fluff, making it easy to parse and understand quickly. Every word earns its place, adhering to best practices for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, time-based logic) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks depth in behavioral context, usage guidelines, and integration with sibling tools. With no annotations and rich schema details, the description should do more to guide the agent, but the output schema mitigates some completeness needs.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are well-documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, as it only mentions 'requested time window' without detailing parameters like 'period' or 'timeframe'. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Retrieves account portfolio history (equity and P/L) over a requested time window.' It specifies the verb ('Retrieves'), resource ('account portfolio history'), and scope ('over a requested time window'), making it easy to understand. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_account_activities' or 'get_account_info', which might also retrieve account-related data, so it misses full sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'get_account_activities' or 'get_stock_bars', which could be used for similar historical data. This lack of context leaves the agent without explicit usage instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 states what the tool does but lacks details on traits like rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness (e.g., real-time vs. delayed), or error handling. This is inadequate for a tool that likely involves external data fetching, leaving significant gaps in understanding its operational behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that front-loads the core functionality without unnecessary words. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (fetching financial data with multiple parameters), the description is minimal but functional. The presence of an output schema means return values don't need explanation, and the 100% schema coverage handles parameters. However, the lack of annotations and behavioral context makes it incomplete for safe and effective use, as it omits operational details like data sources or limitations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description mentions 'one or more stocks', which aligns with the 'symbols' parameter, but adds no further semantic context beyond what the input schema provides. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the schema already fully documents parameters like 'feed' and 'currency'. The description meets the baseline but doesn't enhance parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'latest minute bar for one or more stocks', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_stock_bars' (which likely retrieves historical bars) or 'get_stock_latest_quote' (which retrieves quotes rather than bars), so it doesn't reach the highest score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. For example, it doesn't mention when to choose this over 'get_stock_bars' for historical data or 'get_stock_latest_quote' for quote data, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. This leaves the agent with minimal contextual direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 'Remove' implies a destructive mutation, the description doesn't specify permissions required, whether the operation is idempotent, error conditions (e.g., if the symbol isn't in the watchlist), or what happens on success (e.g., confirmation message). This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the key action ('Remove') and efficiently specifies the target and context. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there's an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and 100% schema coverage for parameters, the description is minimally adequate. However, for a destructive mutation tool, it lacks critical behavioral details like error handling or side effects, which would improve completeness despite the structured data.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters ('watchlist_id' as a UUID and 'symbol' as the asset to remove). The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or constraints (e.g., symbol case-sensitivity). This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Remove') and target ('asset by symbol from a specific watchlist'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'delete_watchlist_by_id' or 'update_watchlist_by_id', which also modify watchlists but in different ways.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. For example, it doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., the asset must already be in the watchlist) or compare it to sibling tools like 'update_watchlist_by_id' that might also handle asset removal. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 it mentions that 'Only the fields you provide will be changed' (a useful partial update behavior), it doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, whether changes are reversible, or what the response contains. For a financial account configuration tool, this is inadequate transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is perfectly concise - a single sentence that communicates the core functionality efficiently. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information. The structure is front-loaded with the main action, followed by an important behavioral detail about partial updates.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there's an output schema (which means the description doesn't need to explain return values) and the input schema has 100% coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, for a mutation tool in a financial trading context with no annotations, it should provide more behavioral context about permissions, side effects, and error handling to be truly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents all 10 parameters with their types, enums, and descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to the scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Updates') and resource ('account configuration settings'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It specifies that multiple settings can be updated at once, which is helpful context. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_account_config' or 'get_account_info', though the update vs. get distinction is implied.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication requirements), when not to use it, or what happens if certain conditions aren't met. For a mutation tool in a financial context, this is a significant gap in usage instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 states the action ('Cancel') but doesn't clarify whether this is irreversible, requires specific permissions, affects all account types, or has rate limits. For a potentially destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a potentially destructive batch operation), lack of annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks critical behavioral context that would help an agent use it safely and appropriately.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, earning a baseline score of 4 for this dimension.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Cancel') and target ('all open orders'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'cancel_order_by_id' by emphasizing the 'all' scope, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with that sibling.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'cancel_order_by_id' or 'close_all_positions'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, timing, or exclusions, leaving the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 states 'Retrieves', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns errors for invalid IDs, or details the output format. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool, earning full marks for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (single parameter, read-only operation), the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), and high schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. However, it lacks behavioral context like error handling or authentication needs, which slightly reduces completeness for a tool with no annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'id' parameter fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as ID format or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Retrieves') and resource ('a single corporate action announcement by ID'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'get_corporate_action_announcements' (plural), which likely retrieves multiple announcements, so it misses full sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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_corporate_action_announcements' or other corporate action tools. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing a valid ID, or exclusions, leaving the agent with minimal usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. It mentions 'real-time SIP data' but doesn't specify rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness, or error handling. For a tool fetching real-time market data, this lack of operational context is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads key information: action, resource, and data source. There is no wasted verbiage, and it directly communicates the tool's core function without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
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, real-time data), the description is reasonably complete but lacks behavioral details. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but without annotations, more context on data sourcing and limitations would enhance completeness for safe agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining 'market_type' implications or 'top' behavior in more detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema adequately documents parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Returns the top market movers (gainers and losers) based on real-time SIP data.' It specifies the verb ('returns'), resource ('top market movers'), and data source ('real-time SIP data'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_most_active_stocks', which might serve a similar but distinct purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_most_active_stocks' or clarify scenarios where this tool is preferred, such as for real-time vs. historical data or specific market contexts. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it 'retrieves' data without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what happens if the symbol/ID is invalid. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. There's zero waste—every word earns its place by specifying the action, resource, and input method without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema (which handles return values), 100% schema coverage for the single parameter, and no complex nested structures, the description is reasonably complete for a simple retrieval tool. However, the lack of behavioral context and usage guidelines relative to siblings leaves room for improvement.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single parameter 'symbol_or_id' with its type and description. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the parameter is required for retrieval. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Retrieves') and resource ('a single option contract'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_option_contracts' (plural) or 'get_option_chain', which might retrieve multiple contracts or structured chain data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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_option_contracts' or 'get_option_chain'. It mentions the input parameter but doesn't clarify scenarios where retrieving a single contract is preferred over batch operations or chain queries.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. It states the tool retrieves data, implying a read-only operation, but lacks details on permissions, error handling, rate limits, or response format. This is insufficient for a tool with potential complexity in financial contexts.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (retrieving a single order), 100% schema coverage, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is mostly complete. However, it lacks behavioral context like error cases or authentication needs, which slightly reduces completeness for a financial API tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents both parameters ('order_id' and 'nested'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining the implications of the 'nested' parameter. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
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 ('Retrieves') and resource ('a single order by its ID'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_orders' (plural retrieval) or 'get_order_by_client_id' (alternative identifier), 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_orders' for multiple orders or 'get_order_by_client_id' for client IDs, nor does it specify prerequisites such as needing an order ID. This leaves the agent without contextual usage instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 'retrieves and formats' but doesn't specify whether this is a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, or details the formatting behavior. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('retrieves and formats') and resource ('latest quote for one or more stocks'). There is no wasted verbiage, making it appropriately sized and structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
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, 1 required), 100% schema coverage, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is mostly complete. However, it lacks behavioral context (e.g., read-only nature, formatting details) and usage guidelines, which are minor gaps in an otherwise well-supported tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, providing detailed explanations for all parameters (symbols, feed, currency). The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already documents, such as clarifying the format of symbols or feed implications. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('retrieves and formats') and resource ('latest quote for one or more stocks'), making the purpose specific. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_stock_quotes' or 'get_stock_snapshot', which likely retrieve similar data but with different scopes or formats.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, such as 'get_stock_quotes' for historical quotes or 'get_stock_snapshot' for broader data. It lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving usage unclear relative to siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. It states the tool retrieves data ('Get'), implying a read-only operation, but does not clarify aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or data freshness (e.g., real-time vs. delayed). For a financial data tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence: 'Get the latest trade for one or more stocks.' It is front-loaded with the core purpose, has zero wasted words, and is appropriately sized for a straightforward tool. Every part of the sentence earns its place by clearly conveying the action and scope.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
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, 1 required) and the presence of both a rich input schema (100% coverage) and an output schema (implied by context signals), the description is reasonably complete. It states the core functionality, and the structured fields handle parameter details and return values. However, it lacks behavioral context (e.g., subscription impacts on 'feed' defaults), which slightly reduces completeness for a financial data tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, meaning the input schema fully documents all parameters ('symbols', 'feed', 'currency') with detailed descriptions, including defaults and enum values for 'feed'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 without compensating value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get the latest trade for one or more stocks.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('latest trade'), and scope ('one or more stocks'), making the intent unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_stock_trades' or 'get_stock_latest_quote', which slightly reduces clarity in a crowded toolset.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., subscription requirements implied by the 'feed' parameter default) or comparisons to sibling tools like 'get_stock_trades' (which might fetch historical trades) or 'get_stock_latest_quote' (for quote data). This omission leaves the agent without explicit usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 states the retrieval action but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, data freshness, or error handling. The description doesn't contradict annotations (none exist), but it fails to provide essential context 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and lists included data types without redundancy. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's scope, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
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, 100% schema coverage, output schema exists), the description is reasonably complete. It specifies the comprehensive nature of the snapshot, and with an output schema, it needn't detail return values. However, it lacks usage context and behavioral details, slightly reducing completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying retrieval of multiple data types, which doesn't clarify parameter usage. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
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 ('Retrieves') and resource ('comprehensive snapshots of stock symbols'), listing the included data types (latest trade, quote, minute bar, daily bar, previous daily bar). It distinguishes from siblings like get_stock_bars or get_stock_latest_quote by emphasizing comprehensiveness, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 it implies comprehensiveness, it doesn't specify scenarios where this is preferred over more specific tools (e.g., get_stock_latest_quote for just quotes) or mention prerequisites like subscription requirements, despite the input schema hinting at defaults based on subscription.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. It states 'Get' which implies a read operation, but doesn't clarify if it's safe (non-destructive), requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output looks like. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose ('Get a specific watchlist') and efficiently specifies the key constraint ('by its ID'), making it easy to parse and understand immediately.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (single parameter, read-only operation) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. However, it lacks behavioral details that would be helpful in the absence of annotations, such as error conditions or performance characteristics.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'watchlist_id' documented as a UUID. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond implying the ID is required to fetch a specific watchlist. This meets the baseline score of 3 when schema coverage is high.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'a specific watchlist by its ID', making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from 'get_watchlists' (plural) by focusing on a single watchlist, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other watchlist-related tools like 'create_watchlist' or 'delete_watchlist_by_id'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_watchlists' for listing all watchlists or 'update_watchlist_by_id' for modifications, leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 states a read operation ('Get') but does not mention any behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'all watchlists' entails (e.g., format, completeness). This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic purpose.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized, making it easy to understand at a glance with zero waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, read-only operation inferred from 'Get'), an output schema exists, and schema coverage is 100%, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like response format or constraints, which could be helpful despite the output schema. It meets basic needs but has clear gaps in context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and the input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). The description does not need to add parameter semantics, as there are none to explain. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since no parameters exist, and the description does not mislead about inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
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 ('all watchlists for the account'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'get_watchlist_by_id', which retrieves a specific watchlist, leaving some room for improvement in sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, such as 'get_watchlist_by_id' for retrieving a single watchlist or 'create_watchlist' for creating new ones. It lacks explicit usage context or exclusions, offering minimal practical direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. It states the tool retrieves and formats account information, implying a read-only operation, but does not specify authentication requirements, rate limits, data freshness, or formatting details. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters and good schema coverage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It specifies what information is retrieved (balances and status), though it could benefit from more behavioral context. The output schema likely handles return values, reducing the need for detailed output description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters, earning a baseline score of 4 for not adding unnecessary information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('retrieves and formats') and resource ('current account information including balances and status'), making the tool's function explicit. However, it does not distinguish itself from potential siblings like 'get_account_config' or 'get_account_activities', which might also retrieve account-related data, so it lacks sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone. This is a significant gap given the many sibling tools in the server.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. It states the tool retrieves data as JSON, which is helpful, but doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, whether it requires authentication, what happens with empty portfolios, rate limits, or response structure details. The description provides minimal behavioral context beyond the basic retrieval action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that immediately conveys the core functionality. Every word earns its place: 'Retrieves' (action), 'all current positions' (scope), 'in the portfolio' (context), 'as JSON' (format). There's no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has zero parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists (so return values are documented elsewhere), the description provides adequate context for a simple retrieval operation. However, it could be more complete by clarifying the relationship to sibling position-related tools and providing more behavioral context given the lack of annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description appropriately doesn't waste space discussing non-existent parameters, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools when schema coverage is complete.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Retrieves') and target resource ('all current positions in the portfolio'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_open_position' or 'get_portfolio_history', which would require more specific scope clarification.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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_open_position' (which might retrieve a single position) or 'get_portfolio_history' (which might provide historical data). There's no mention of prerequisites, timing considerations, or comparison with sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 'retrieves and formats' but doesn't specify details like data freshness (e.g., real-time vs. delayed), rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality ('retrieves and formats') and specifies the key resources. There is no wasted verbiage or redundancy, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is reasonably complete for its purpose. It clearly states what the tool does, and the presence of an output schema means return values don't need explanation in the description. However, it could benefit from more behavioral context, such as data sources or update frequency, to fully compensate for the lack of annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description adds no parameter-specific information, which is appropriate here, but it does imply the output includes 'current market status' and 'next open/close times', giving context on what data is returned. This aligns with the baseline expectation for zero-parameter tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
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 specific verbs ('retrieves and formats') and resources ('current market status and next open/close times'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_calendar' or 'get_market_movers', which might provide overlapping or related market information, leaving some ambiguity about its unique role.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, such as 'get_calendar' for broader market events or 'get_market_movers' for active stock data. It lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool name and description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 retrieving historical data but omits critical details like rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination behavior (implied by parameters but not explicitly described), error conditions, or whether the operation is idempotent. For a data retrieval tool with complex parameters, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying the action, data type, and target resource.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, historical data retrieval) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks behavioral context (e.g., rate limits, pagination details) that would be helpful despite the output schema, especially with no annotations provided.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 7 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining OHLCV format or symbol conventions. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Retrieves') and resource ('historical bar (OHLCV) data for one or more option contracts'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_option_contract or get_option_snapshot by focusing on time-series data rather than metadata or snapshots.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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_bars or get_crypto_bars, nor does it mention prerequisites such as required permissions or data availability. The description solely states what it does without contextual usage advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 states the tool 'replaces' an order, implying mutation, but doesn't clarify if this is destructive (e.g., overwrites existing order), requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what happens on failure. The constraint 'At least one optional field must be provided' adds some context, but overall, it lacks details on safety, side effects, or response behavior, which is inadequate for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with two sentences that are front-loaded and waste no words. It directly states the purpose and a key constraint, making it easy to parse. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, nested objects, mutation operation) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and a constraint, but with no annotations and rich input schema, it should do more to explain behavioral aspects like error handling or idempotency. The output schema reduces the need for return value details, but the description lacks completeness for safe invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 8 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying that optional fields are for updates, but it doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide additional semantics. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate with extra insights.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Replaces an existing open order') and the resource ('order'), specifying it's for updates to parameters. It distinguishes from siblings like 'cancel_order_by_id' by focusing on modification rather than cancellation, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The mention of 'open order' provides useful scope, but it could be more specific about what 'replaces' entails compared to other update tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by stating 'At least one optional field must be provided,' which suggests when to use it (for updating orders) but lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like 'place_stock_order' for new orders or 'cancel_order_by_id' for removal. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., order must be open) or exclusions, leaving usage context somewhat vague.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. It mentions the required 'loc' parameter but does not cover other behavioral aspects such as rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what the output contains. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation support.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded, consisting of two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and a key usage note. There is no wasted language, making it efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the basic purpose and a critical parameter note. However, with no annotations and multiple sibling tools, it could benefit from more context on differentiation and behavioral traits to be fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents both parameters ('loc' and 'symbols') thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by emphasizing that 'loc' is required and should be set to 'us', but this is somewhat redundant with the schema's required field and enum. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
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 the verb 'Returns' and resource 'latest quote for one or more crypto symbols', making it easy to understand what it does. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_crypto_quotes' or 'get_crypto_latest_bar', which might offer similar functionality, so it misses the highest score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides some usage guidance by stating 'The loc parameter is required — always set loc to "us"', which implies a specific context for use. However, it does not offer explicit alternatives or clarify when to use this tool over siblings like 'get_crypto_quotes' or 'get_crypto_latest_trade', leaving room for ambiguity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. It mentions that 'loc' is required and should be set to 'us', which adds some operational context, but it fails to describe key behaviors such as rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what the output looks like (though an output schema exists). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and front-loaded, consisting of just two sentences that directly state the purpose and a key parameter guideline. There is no wasted language, and every sentence serves a clear purpose, making it efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (2 parameters, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is mostly complete. It covers the basic purpose and a critical parameter note. However, with no annotations, it could benefit from more behavioral context like rate limits or auth requirements, but the output schema reduces the need for extensive detail.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by emphasizing that 'loc' is required and should be set to 'us', but this is somewhat redundant with the schema's required field and enum. It does not provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema offers, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Returns the latest trade for one or more crypto symbols.' It specifies the verb ('returns') and resource ('latest trade for crypto symbols'), making it easy to understand. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_crypto_trades' or 'get_crypto_latest_quote', which could cause confusion, so it's not a perfect 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides some usage guidance by stating 'The loc parameter is required — always set loc to "us".' This implies a specific context for parameter usage but does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_crypto_trades' or 'get_crypto_latest_quote'. It lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives, so it's only implied usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral context. It mentions formatting output but doesn't disclose rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness, error conditions, or pagination behavior. The description doesn't contradict annotations (none exist), but fails to provide essential operational details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence efficiently conveys core functionality with zero wasted words. Front-loaded with the main action and resource, followed by specific data inclusions. Every element earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the existence of an output schema (which handles return values), 100% schema coverage, and relatively simple functionality, the description is reasonably complete. However, for a financial data tool with no annotations, it should ideally mention data latency, subscription requirements, or typical use cases to better guide the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain symbol format requirements, feed implications, or usage patterns. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does all the documentation work.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('retrieves and formats'), resource ('latest quote for one or more option contracts'), and scope ('including bid/ask prices, sizes, and exchange information'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_option_chain (which provides chain data) or get_option_snapshot (which may include different data points).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for obtaining real-time quote data for options, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_option_snapshot or get_option_latest_trade. No prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison to sibling tools are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It clearly indicates this is a read operation ('Retrieves'), which is helpful. However, it doesn't disclose behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, response format, or whether the data is real-time vs cached.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose with specific examples. No wasted words, and the information is front-loaded with the core action and resource.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description provides adequate context about what configuration data is retrieved. However, it could better explain the relationship with sibling tools like 'update_account_config' and 'get_account_info' for more complete guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on what configuration data is returned.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('account configuration settings'), with specific examples of what's included (trading restrictions, margin settings, PDT checks, options trading level). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_account_info' by focusing on configuration rather than general account information.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_account_info' or 'update_account_config'. The description implies it's for retrieving configuration settings, but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'comprehensive snapshots' but does not disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or data freshness. The description is accurate but lacks operational context beyond the basic function.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists key data points. There is no wasted language, and it directly communicates the tool's function without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of 5 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and the presence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the tool's purpose and data scope, but could benefit from more behavioral context (e.g., data sources or limitations) since annotations are absent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining interactions between parameters or providing examples. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Retrieves' and the resource 'comprehensive snapshots of option contracts', specifying the data included (latest trade, quote, implied volatility, and Greeks). It distinguishes from siblings like get_option_chain or get_option_contract by focusing on snapshots with specific financial metrics.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for retrieving option contract snapshots with detailed metrics, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_option_chain (for chain data) or get_option_contract (for contract details). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations. While annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, the description clarifies idempotency behavior for client_order_id ('you can safely retry with the same value'), explains mutual exclusivity rules (qty vs notional), and specifies conditional requirements (e.g., extended_hours only works with specific type/time_in_force combinations).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a brief purpose statement followed by detailed parameter documentation. While lengthy due to the high parameter count, every sentence adds necessary information. The formatting with clear parameter bullets enhances readability, though the initial purpose statement could be more front-loaded with critical usage context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the high complexity (16 parameters, destructive operation) and 0% schema description coverage, the description provides substantial parameter documentation and behavioral context. With an output schema present, the description appropriately doesn't explain return values. However, it lacks broader usage context like authentication requirements, rate limits, or error scenarios.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden of explaining parameters. It comprehensively documents all 16 parameters with clear semantics, including examples (e.g., 'AAPL', 'SPY'), valid values, conditional requirements, mutual exclusivity rules, and behavioral implications (e.g., order_class automatically set to 'bracket' when take_profit or stop_loss params are provided).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose as 'Place a stock or ETF order', which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'place_crypto_order' or 'place_option_order', though the distinction is implied by the 'stock or ETF' specification.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. There's no mention of prerequisites (like account permissions or market hours), nor does it reference sibling tools for related functions like 'cancel_order_by_id' or 'replace_order_by_id'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the required loc parameter constraint ('always set loc to "us"'), which is useful behavioral context beyond the schema. However, it doesn't describe rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or the structure of the returned bar data (though output schema exists). The description adds some value but leaves gaps in behavioral disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place: the first states the core functionality, the second provides critical usage guidance. No wasted words, front-loaded with the main purpose, and structured for immediate comprehension.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
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 required parameters), 100% schema coverage, and existence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the core purpose and critical parameter constraint. The output schema will handle return values, so the description doesn't need to explain those. Minor gaps remain in behavioral context like rate limits or error handling.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description adds marginal value by emphasizing the loc parameter requirement ('always set loc to "us"'), but this doesn't significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema's enum and description. No additional parameter semantics are provided, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
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 ('Returns') and resource ('latest minute bar for one or more crypto symbols'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_crypto_bars (historical bars) or get_crypto_latest_quote/trade (different data types). It precisely defines what data is retrieved and for which asset class.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool by specifying it returns 'latest minute bar' data, implying real-time or recent market data needs. It distinguishes from historical bar tools but doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The loc parameter requirement is stated, but no broader context about sibling selection is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
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 effectively adds context beyond the input schema by noting that 'the response includes the full order book depth and can be large', which warns about potential data size and performance implications. It doesn't contradict any annotations, and while it could mention rate limits or authentication needs, it provides useful operational insight.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized with three concise sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a required parameter note and a behavioral warning. Every sentence earns its place by adding distinct value without any waste or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
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 required parameters, 100% schema coverage, output schema exists), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, a key parameter constraint, and a behavioral trait (large response size). With an output schema handling return values, the description doesn't need to explain those, but it could benefit from more usage guidelines or error handling context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by emphasizing that 'loc' must always be set to 'us', but this is somewhat redundant with the enum in the schema. It doesn't provide additional syntax or format details for the parameters, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Returns'), resource ('latest orderbook'), and scope ('for one or more crypto symbols'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_crypto_bars or get_crypto_latest_quote. It precisely defines what the tool does without being vague or tautological.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides implied usage by specifying 'loc parameter is required — always set loc to "us"', which gives some context for when to use this tool. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like get_crypto_snapshot or get_crypto_quotes, and no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that 'loc' is required and must be set to 'us', adding operational context. However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or response format, leaving behavioral gaps for a mutation-free tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence and uses a second sentence for a critical parameter note. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it highly efficient and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema (which handles return values) and 100% schema coverage, the description is mostly complete for a read-only data retrieval tool. It covers purpose and a key parameter constraint, but could improve by addressing behavioral aspects like rate limits or error cases, given the lack of annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description adds minimal value by emphasizing that 'loc' is required and should be 'us', but this is redundant with the schema's required field and enum. No additional syntax or format details are provided beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Returns a snapshot') and resource ('for one or more crypto symbols'), with precise details on what data is included ('latest trade, quote, minute bar, daily bar, and previous daily bar'). It effectively distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'get_crypto_bars' or 'get_crypto_latest_quote' by emphasizing the comprehensive snapshot nature.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
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 by specifying it returns a snapshot with multiple data types, implying it's for aggregated crypto market data. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., 'get_crypto_latest_quote' for just quotes), which prevents a score of 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and adds valuable behavioral context beyond the input schema: it explains that the sell order queues if the market is closed and executes at the next open, which is critical for understanding timing and execution behavior. It does not cover aspects like authentication needs or rate limits, but the disclosed behavior is substantial.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the core action in the first sentence and adds important behavioral context in the second, with zero wasted words. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a financial trading tool with no annotations but a 100% schema coverage and an output schema (implied by context signals), the description is mostly complete: it explains the tool's purpose, usage context, and key behavioral trait (queuing on market closure). However, it lacks details on prerequisites like authentication or error handling, which could be important for full context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents the parameters (qty, percentage, symbol_or_asset_id). The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as clarifying the interaction between qty and percentage, so it meets the baseline of 3 without compensating further.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Closes a specific position'), the resource ('for a single symbol'), and the mechanism ('by placing a sell order'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'close_all_positions' which handles multiple positions. It specifies a precise operation rather than a generic close.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
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 it (closing a single position) and hints at alternatives by specifying 'for a single symbol,' implying 'close_all_positions' for multiple symbols. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, leaving some ambiguity about sibling tools like 'do_not_exercise_options_position'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
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 effectively warns about the risk of extremely large responses without date bounds, which is crucial for performance and data handling. It also implies the tool is read-only (retrieves) and safe, but does not detail rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions, leaving some gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a critical warning, all in two efficient sentences. There is no wasted language, and every sentence serves a clear functional role in guiding tool usage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
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, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, key behavioral warnings, and usage context. However, it lacks details on authentication, error handling, or response format specifics, which could be relevant for full contextual understanding despite the output schema's existence.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, providing clear details for all three parameters (start, end, date_type). The description adds value by emphasizing the importance of providing start and end dates and warning about response size, but does not elaborate on parameter meanings beyond what the schema already documents, aligning with the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
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 specific verbs ('retrieves and formats') and resource ('market calendar'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on calendar data rather than assets, orders, positions, or other financial entities. It goes beyond a simple tautology by specifying the formatting aspect.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context on when to use this tool (for market calendar data within a date range) and includes a strong warning about date bounds to prevent misuse. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives among the many sibling tools (e.g., get_clock for time-related data), which prevents a perfect score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses important behavioral traits: the response can be very large (performance warning) and mentions pagination via 'next_page_token' (implied in the limit parameter context). It doesn't cover authentication needs, rate limits, or error conditions, but provides useful 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two well-structured sentences: first states purpose and scope, second provides usage guidance with specific parameter examples. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy. Front-loaded with the core functionality followed by practical advice.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (12 parameters, financial data domain) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, data scope, performance warning, and filtering strategy. Could be improved with more explicit behavioral guidance given no annotations, but adequate for a read operation with good schema documentation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 12 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning four specific parameters (type, strike_price_gte/lte, expiration_date, limit) as examples for narrowing results, but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'retrieves' and the resource 'option chain data for an underlying symbol', specifying the data included (latest trade, quote, implied volatility, greeks). It distinguishes from siblings like get_option_bars or get_option_contracts by focusing on the full chain with filtering capabilities.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
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 narrow results') by listing specific filtering parameters (type, strike_price_gte/lte, expiration_date, limit). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives among sibling tools for different data needs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 describes the tool's function and utility but doesn't mention performance characteristics, rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. The description is accurate but lacks operational details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description consists of two concise sentences that efficiently communicate the tool's purpose and utility. Every word serves a clear purpose with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has zero parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists, the description provides adequate context about what the tool does and why it's useful. However, with no annotations, it could benefit from mentioning that this is a read-only operation or other behavioral traits.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the input requirements. The description appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose rather than parameter details, which is correct for a parameterless tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
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 ('Retrieves') and resource ('mapping of exchange codes to exchange names for option market data'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on exchange code mapping rather than option data retrieval or other account operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for usage ('Useful for interpreting exchange fields returned by other option data tools'), indicating when this tool is helpful. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternative tools for different needs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating safe read operations with potentially large datasets. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the automatic start time computation when omitted, clarifies the 'limit' parameter applies across all symbols, and specifies timestamp sort options. No contradiction with annotations exists.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by detailed parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value, though the parameter section is somewhat dense. It's appropriately sized for an 8-parameter tool with complex interactions, but could be slightly more streamlined.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters with interactions), 0% schema coverage, and the presence of an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It thoroughly documents all parameters, explains behavioral nuances (automatic lookback, cross-symbol limit), and since an output schema exists, it appropriately omits return value details. No significant gaps remain for agent understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing comprehensive parameter documentation. It explains all 8 parameters, including their purposes, formats (e.g., RFC 3339, comma-separated symbols), default values, ranges (limit 1-10000), and interactions (how start omission triggers lookback). This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Retrieve historical bid/ask quotes') and resource ('for one or more cryptocurrencies'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_crypto_latest_quote (real-time) or get_crypto_bars (OHLC data). It precisely defines what data is returned and for what asset class.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context through parameter explanations (e.g., 'When start is omitted...'), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_crypto_latest_quote for real-time data or get_crypto_bars for OHLC bars. It provides operational guidance but lacks comparative sibling differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and adds valuable behavioral context: it explains what happens when an order was replaced (returns original with replaced_by field), which isn't obvious from the name or schema. It doesn't cover error cases, permissions, or rate limits, but provides important domain-specific behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with zero waste: the first states the core purpose, the second adds crucial behavioral nuance about replaced orders. Every word earns its place, and the most important information comes first.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter read operation with 100% schema coverage and an output schema (implied by context signals), the description is complete: it explains what the tool does, distinguishes it from similar tools, and adds important domain behavior about replaced orders that wouldn't be in structured fields.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (client_order_id is clearly defined there), meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'retrieves' and the resource 'a single order', specifying it's by 'client order ID'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_order_by_id' (which likely uses a different ID type) and 'get_orders' (which retrieves multiple orders).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context by specifying 'by client order ID', suggesting this tool is for when you have the client-assigned ID rather than another identifier. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives like 'get_order_by_id' for system IDs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: 'broad queries can return very large responses,' warning about potential performance/volume issues. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination behavior, leaving some gaps for a retrieval tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with zero waste: first states purpose with examples, second provides critical usage guidance. It's front-loaded with the core function and efficiently addresses the most important operational constraint.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 6 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema (implied by context signals), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, usage guidance, and a key behavioral warning. However, for a tool with potential large responses, mentioning pagination or result limits would enhance completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 6 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, but it implies the importance of 'since' and 'until' (date range) and 'symbol' for filtering. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('corporate action announcements'), with specific examples (dividends, mergers, splits, spinoffs). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_corporate_action_announcement' (singular) by implying this retrieves multiple announcements, and from 'get_corporate_actions' by specifying announcements rather than actions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicit guidance is provided: 'Use a narrow date range and filter by symbol when possible — broad queries can return very large responses.' This tells the agent when to use (with filters) and when to avoid (broad queries), addressing performance concerns directly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
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 effectively describes the destructive nature of the operation ('replaces the entire watchlist') and warns about data loss if 'symbols' is omitted, which is crucial for a mutation tool. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or error handling, leaving some behavioral aspects uncovered.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded, with two sentences that efficiently convey the purpose, critical behavior, and usage warning. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity as a mutation operation with no annotations but an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers the purpose, usage guidelines, and key behavioral risks. The presence of an output schema means return values are documented elsewhere, so the description appropriately focuses on input behavior. A minor gap is the lack of context on permissions or error cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds value by emphasizing the importance of the 'symbols' parameter and explaining its role in full replacement, but it does not provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema specifies. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Update an existing watchlist') and specifies the resource ('watchlist'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'create_watchlist' and 'delete_watchlist_by_id'. It explicitly notes the full replacement behavior, which adds specificity beyond a generic update.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: for updating an existing watchlist with full replacement. It warns against partial updates by stating 'IMPORTANT: this replaces the entire watchlist' and specifies that 'symbols' must include all desired symbols, implicitly distinguishing it from tools like 'add_asset_to_watchlist_by_id' or 'remove_asset_from_watchlist_by_id' for incremental changes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
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 behavioral traits: it explains the market-closed scenario (orders queue for next open) and implies a destructive/write operation through 'closes' and 'sell orders'. It doesn't mention permissions, rate limits, or confirmation requirements, but covers the core execution behavior adequately.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the primary action, the second explains a key behavioral nuance. Every word earns its place, and the most important information (what the tool does) is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a destructive operation with no annotations but with an output schema (which handles return values), the description provides complete context for agent decision-making. It explains the core behavior, distinguishes from siblings, and covers the market timing consideration - all essential for a bulk liquidation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't mention the 'cancel_orders' parameter at all, but since there's only one optional parameter and the schema fully documents it, this is acceptable. The description focuses on the core action rather than parameter details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
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 specific verbs ('closes all open positions', 'placing sell orders') and distinguishes it from siblings like 'close_position' (singular) and 'cancel_all_orders' (cancels orders, not positions). It explicitly defines the resource scope as 'all open positions'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context about when to use this tool (to close all positions) and implicitly distinguishes it from 'close_position' (for individual positions) and 'cancel_all_orders' (for orders only). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention all relevant alternatives like liquidating positions individually.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses critical behavioral traits: the unfiltered response is very large (thousands of assets), which warns about performance or data volume issues. However, it does not mention other aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination behavior, leaving some gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and critical warning, followed by specific guidance. Every sentence earns its place by adding essential information without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (list operation with filtering), the description is complete enough. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, and behavioral warnings. With an output schema present, there is no need to explain return values, and the high schema coverage handles parameter details adequately.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds value by emphasizing the importance of using status, asset_class, or exchange parameters to filter results, but does not provide additional semantic details beyond what the schema offers, aligning with the baseline for high coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
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 ('all available assets'), and explicitly distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'get_asset' for single asset lookups. It specifies the scope includes optional filtering, making the purpose specific and differentiated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool (for multiple assets with filtering) versus when to use 'get_asset' (for a single asset). It includes a warning about the unfiltered response size and advises to narrow results with parameters, offering clear alternatives and exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating safe read operations with potentially large data. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it explains the automatic start-time computation, data point limits (1–10000), feed options including paid/free tiers, and backtesting utility with 'asof'. No contradiction with annotations exists.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by detailed parameter explanations. It is appropriately sized for a complex tool with 13 parameters, though some sentences could be more concise (e.g., the start omission rule is slightly verbose). Overall, it efficiently conveys necessary information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (13 parameters, 0% schema coverage) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is complete. It covers all parameters, behavioral nuances (lookback computation, limits, feed tiers), and usage context, providing everything needed for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by detailing all 13 parameters. It explains each parameter's purpose, format (e.g., comma-separated tickers, RFC 3339 times), allowed values (e.g., timeframe options, adjustment types), defaults, and interactions (e.g., start omission triggers lookback). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
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 specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('historical price bars (OHLCV) for one or more stocks'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_stock_latest_bar (single latest bar) or get_stock_quotes (quotes rather than OHLCV bars). The mention of 'one or more stocks' further clarifies scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for usage with the start-time computation rule ('When start is omitted...'), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_stock_latest_bar or get_crypto_bars. It implies usage for historical data retrieval but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating safe read operations with potentially large data. The description adds valuable context beyond this: it explains default lookback behavior, feed restrictions for free accounts (avoiding 403 errors), and data limits (max 10000 points). It does not contradict annotations and enriches understanding of practical constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. It is appropriately sized for an 11-parameter tool, but some sentences could be more concise (e.g., the feed explanation is slightly verbose). Overall, it is front-loaded and informative without unnecessary fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (11 parameters, 0% schema coverage) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is highly complete. It covers all parameters, behavioral nuances, and practical considerations like account limitations. No gaps remain for effective tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining all 11 parameters in detail. It clarifies meanings (e.g., symbols as comma-separated tickers), defaults (e.g., minutes=20), interactions (e.g., start omission triggers lookback), constraints (e.g., limit range 1-10000), and critical usage notes (e.g., feed requirements for free accounts). This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Retrieve historical trade data') and resource ('for one or more stocks'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_stock_bars, get_stock_latest_trade, or get_stock_quotes which focus on different data types or timeframes. It precisely defines what the tool does without being vague or tautological.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
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 certain parameters (e.g., 'When start is omitted...', 'Paper/free accounts must set feed="iex" to avoid 403 errors'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternative tools like get_stock_bars or get_stock_latest_trade. The guidance is operational rather than comparative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations. Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description clarifies idempotency via client_order_id: 'If the request times out, you can safely retry with the same value — the API will reject duplicates.' It also notes mutual exclusivity rules (qty vs. notional) and order-type dependencies, enhancing transparency without contradicting annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a brief purpose statement followed by a parameter list. Each parameter explanation is concise and informative. However, the initial purpose line is somewhat redundant with the title, and some sentences could be tighter (e.g., the client_order_id explanation is slightly verbose), keeping it from a perfect score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (9 parameters, destructive operation) and 0% schema coverage, the description is highly complete. It covers all parameters, behavioral nuances, and constraints. With an output schema present, it appropriately omits return value details. The annotations provide safety hints, and the description fills in critical gaps like idempotency and order logic.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining all 9 parameters in detail. It clarifies meanings (e.g., 'Crypto pair'), constraints (e.g., 'Mutually exclusive with qty'), dependencies (e.g., 'Required for limit and stop_limit orders'), and usage notes (e.g., 'Unique idempotency key'). This adds significant semantic value beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Place a cryptocurrency order.' It specifies the verb ('place') and resource ('cryptocurrency order'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'place_stock_order' and 'place_option_order' which handle different asset types. This makes the purpose specific and differentiated from alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for usage through parameter explanations (e.g., 'Only valid for market orders' for notional, 'Crypto does not support "day" or "fok"' for time_in_force). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'place_stock_order' or general guidance on order placement scenarios, which prevents a perfect score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating safe read operations with flexible inputs. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains automatic start time computation when omitted, default values for lookback parameters, and data point limits across symbols. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured: a clear purpose statement followed by a concise explanation of automatic start computation, then a well-organized Args section. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, historical data retrieval), the description is complete: it covers purpose, parameter semantics, behavioral details, and usage context. With an output schema present, return values don't need explanation, and annotations cover safety aspects.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing detailed semantics for all 9 parameters: it explains symbols format, timeframe options, start/end behavior, lookback defaults, limit range, and sort options. This adds crucial meaning beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Retrieve historical price bars') and resource ('cryptocurrencies'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_crypto_latest_bar (real-time) or get_stock_bars (different asset class). It explicitly mentions OHLCV data, providing precise scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
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 (historical data retrieval) and implies when not to use it (for real-time data, use get_crypto_latest_bar). However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state exclusions, though the sibling list shows related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating safe read operations with open-ended data. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond this: it explains how omitted parameters trigger automatic computations (e.g., 'start' defaults to now minus lookback), specifies data limits and ranges ('1–10000'), and describes sorting options. This enhances transparency without contradicting annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a clear 'Args:' section detailing each parameter. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, 0% schema coverage) and the presence of annotations and an output schema, the description is complete. It thoroughly explains parameter usage and behaviors, and since an output schema exists, it appropriately omits return value details, focusing on what the agent needs to invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing detailed semantics for all 8 parameters. It explains each parameter's purpose, format (e.g., 'comma-separated crypto pairs', 'RFC 3339'), default values, interactions (e.g., 'start' omission triggers lookback), and constraints (e.g., 'limit' range). This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
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 ('retrieve') and resource ('historical trade data for one or more cryptocurrencies'), making it immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_crypto_bars' or 'get_crypto_latest_trade' by focusing on historical trade data retrieval rather than bars, latest data, or other asset types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for usage through the explanation of default behaviors when parameters like 'start' are omitted, and it implicitly distinguishes from alternatives by specifying it retrieves 'historical trade data' (not real-time or aggregated data). However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or name specific alternatives among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds valuable behavioral context beyond this. It explains authentication constraints ('Paper/free accounts must set feed="iex" to avoid 403 errors'), data source options with implications, and the automatic computation of start time. This enhances the agent's understanding of operational nuances.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured: a clear purpose statement followed by a bullet-point-like explanation of parameters. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (11 parameters, 0% schema coverage), the description provides comprehensive coverage of inputs, usage notes, and constraints. With an output schema present, it appropriately focuses on input semantics and behavioral context rather than return values. It leaves no significant gaps for agent understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing detailed semantics for all 11 parameters. It explains each parameter's purpose, format (e.g., 'comma-separated tickers', 'RFC 3339'), default values, constraints (e.g., '1–10000'), and practical implications (e.g., feed choices affecting access). This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Retrieve historical bid/ask quotes'), resource ('for one or more stocks'), and scope ('level 1'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_stock_bars or get_stock_latest_quote. It precisely communicates what the tool does without ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
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 certain parameters (e.g., 'Paper/free accounts must set feed="iex" to avoid 403 errors') and explains default behaviors (e.g., start computation when omitted). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_stock_bars or get_stock_latest_quote, which would be helpful for sibling differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains idempotency behavior ('If the request times out, you can safely retry with the same value — the API will reject duplicates'), clarifies that 'time_in_force' is restricted to 'day' only for options, and explains the financial implications of limit_price signs. While annotations provide safety hints (destructiveHint: true), the description adds practical implementation details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections: purpose statement, single-leg vs multi-leg differentiation, and detailed parameter explanations. While comprehensive, every sentence serves a purpose - no wasted words. The front-loaded distinction between order types is particularly effective for agent comprehension.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of options trading with 10 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and destructiveHint: true annotation, the description provides complete context. It covers all parameter semantics, usage conditions, behavioral constraints, and financial implications. The presence of an output schema means return values don't need explanation, allowing focus on input semantics and usage guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing detailed semantic explanations for all 10 parameters. It explains qty's dual role as contract count and strategy multiplier, clarifies symbol format requirements, defines position_intent values, explains limit_price sign conventions, and provides comprehensive leg structure details. This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description starts with a specific verb ('Place') and resource ('options order'), clearly stating the tool's function. It immediately distinguishes between single-leg and multi-leg orders, providing explicit differentiation from sibling tools like place_stock_order and place_crypto_order by focusing specifically on options trading.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to use specific parameters: 'For single-leg orders, provide symbol, side, and qty' and 'For multi-leg orders, provide qty, legs, and optionally order_class="mleg"'. It also clarifies exclusions: 'Symbol and side on the parent are not needed for multi-leg.' This gives clear conditional usage rules.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![alpaca-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/alpacahq/alpaca-mcp-server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/alpacahq/alpaca-mcp-server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![alpaca-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/alpacahq/alpaca-mcp-server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/alpacahq/alpaca-mcp-server)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/alpacahq/alpaca-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server