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 the required 'loc' parameter but does not cover other behavioral aspects such as rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what the output contains. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation support.

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 concise and front-loaded, consisting of two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and a key usage note. There is no wasted language, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the basic purpose and a critical parameter note. However, with no annotations and multiple sibling tools, it could benefit from more context on differentiation and behavioral traits to be fully complete.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents both parameters ('loc' and 'symbols') thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by emphasizing that 'loc' is required and should be set to 'us', but this is somewhat redundant with the schema's required field and enum. Baseline 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 the verb 'Returns' and resource 'latest quote for one or more crypto symbols', making it easy to understand what it does. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_crypto_quotes' or 'get_crypto_latest_bar', which might offer similar functionality, so it misses the highest 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 some usage guidance by stating 'The loc parameter is required — always set loc to "us"', which implies a specific context for use. However, it does not offer explicit alternatives or clarify when to use this tool over siblings like 'get_crypto_quotes' or 'get_crypto_latest_trade', leaving room for ambiguity.

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