alpaca-mcp-server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.