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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.