alpaca-mcp-server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'retrieves and formats,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior (beyond what's in the schema), or error handling. For a tool with 9 parameters and no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.

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 extremely concise—a single sentence—and front-loaded with the core purpose. There's no wasted verbiage or redundancy, making it efficient for quick comprehension. Every word earns its place by directly stating the tool's function.

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 complexity (9 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is minimally adequate. The output schema likely covers return values, reducing the need for the description to explain them. However, for a read operation with multiple filters and pagination, the description lacks context on performance, limitations, or common use cases, leaving room for improvement.

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 description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the input schema, which has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all 9 parameters. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. The description doesn't compensate with additional context like examples or usage tips for parameters.

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: 'Retrieves and formats corporate action announcements.' It specifies the verb ('retrieves and formats') and resource ('corporate action announcements'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_corporate_action_announcement' or 'get_corporate_action_announcements', which is why it doesn't achieve a perfect score.

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 sibling tools (e.g., 'get_corporate_action_announcement' for single announcements) or specify scenarios where this tool is preferred. Without such context, the agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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