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. It discloses that 'loc' is required and must be set to 'us', adding operational context. However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or response format, leaving behavioral gaps for a mutation-free tool.

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 in the first sentence and uses a second sentence for a critical parameter note. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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 has an output schema (which handles return values) and 100% schema coverage, the description is mostly complete for a read-only data retrieval tool. It covers purpose and a key parameter constraint, but could improve by addressing behavioral aspects like rate limits or error cases, given 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description adds minimal value by emphasizing that 'loc' is required and should be 'us', but this is redundant with the schema's required field and enum. No additional syntax or format details are provided beyond the schema.

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 a snapshot') and resource ('for one or more crypto symbols'), with precise details on what data is included ('latest trade, quote, minute bar, daily bar, and previous daily bar'). It effectively distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'get_crypto_bars' or 'get_crypto_latest_quote' by emphasizing the comprehensive snapshot nature.

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 for when to use this tool by specifying it returns a snapshot with multiple data types, implying it's for aggregated crypto market data. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., 'get_crypto_latest_quote' for just quotes), which prevents a score of 5.

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