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 effectively warns about the risk of extremely large responses without date bounds, which is crucial for performance and data handling. It also implies the tool is read-only (retrieves) and safe, but does not detail rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions, leaving some 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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a critical warning, all in two efficient sentences. There is no wasted language, and every sentence serves a clear functional role in guiding tool usage.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, key behavioral warnings, and usage context. However, it lacks details on authentication, error handling, or response format specifics, which could be relevant for full contextual understanding despite the output schema's existence.

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, providing clear details for all three parameters (start, end, date_type). The description adds value by emphasizing the importance of providing start and end dates and warning about response size, but does not elaborate on parameter meanings beyond what the schema already documents, aligning with the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific verbs ('retrieves and formats') and resource ('market calendar'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on calendar data rather than assets, orders, positions, or other financial entities. It goes beyond a simple tautology by specifying the formatting aspect.

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 clear context on when to use this tool (for market calendar data within a date range) and includes a strong warning about date bounds to prevent misuse. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives among the many sibling tools (e.g., get_clock for time-related data), which prevents a perfect score.

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