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 '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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.