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 mentions 'retrieves and formats' but doesn't specify details like data freshness (e.g., real-time vs. delayed), rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational behavior.

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 functionality ('retrieves and formats') and specifies the key resources. There is no wasted verbiage or redundancy, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 (0 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is reasonably complete for its purpose. It clearly states what the tool does, and the presence of an output schema means return values don't need explanation in the description. However, it could benefit from more behavioral context, such as data sources or update frequency, to fully compensate for 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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description adds no parameter-specific information, which is appropriate here, but it does imply the output includes 'current market status' and 'next open/close times', giving context on what data is returned. This aligns with the baseline expectation for zero-parameter tools.

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 resources ('current market status and next open/close times'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_calendar' or 'get_market_movers', which might provide overlapping or related market information, leaving some ambiguity about its unique role.

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, such as 'get_calendar' for broader market events or 'get_market_movers' for active stock data. It lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool name and description alone.

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