Get Alpaca Endpoint Docs

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those annotations by stating 'Read-only; does not execute the endpoint; excludes Broker API.' This clarifies that fetching docs is a safe operation and sets expectations about scope. 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.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then the usage condition, then the behavioral caveats. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple, has an output schema, and annotations cover safety. The description clearly handles the main decision point (resolved endpoint vs. searching). The only notable gap is the undocumented 'title' parameter, but the default value in the schema mitigates this. Overall it is nearly complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'method and path' identify the exact endpoint, which adds meaning to those two parameters. However, it does not explain the optional 'title' parameter or provide formatting/value guidance for path or method. This is partial but not complete compensation.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch reference docs for one exact Alpaca API endpoint by method and path.' It also distinguishes the tool from sibling search/list tools by noting the endpoint must be 'already resolved' and explicitly excludes Broker API. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 gives a clear usage condition: 'Use when the endpoint is already resolved and details such as parameters, request shape, responses, or examples are needed.' It also clarifies what the tool does not do ('does not execute the endpoint') and its boundary ('excludes Broker API'). It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools, but the condition strongly implies when not to use this tool.

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