alpaca-mcp-server

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.