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 adds context beyond the input schema by noting that 'the response includes the full order book depth and can be large', which warns about potential data size and performance implications. It doesn't contradict any annotations, and while it could mention rate limits or authentication needs, it provides useful operational insight.

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 appropriately sized with three concise sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a required parameter note and a behavioral warning. Every sentence earns its place by adding distinct value without any waste or redundancy.

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 (2 required parameters, 100% schema coverage, output schema exists), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, a key parameter constraint, and a behavioral trait (large response size). With an output schema handling return values, the description doesn't need to explain those, but it could benefit from more usage guidelines or error handling context.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by emphasizing that 'loc' must always be set to 'us', but this is somewhat redundant with the enum in the schema. It doesn't provide additional syntax or format details for the parameters, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specific action ('Returns'), resource ('latest orderbook'), and scope ('for one or more crypto symbols'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_crypto_bars or get_crypto_latest_quote. It precisely defines what the tool does without being vague or tautological.

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 implied usage by specifying 'loc parameter is required — always set loc to "us"', which gives some context for when to use this tool. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like get_crypto_snapshot or get_crypto_quotes, and no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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