alpaca-mcp-server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Retrieves and formats details' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's read-only (implied but not explicit), what data it returns, error conditions (e.g., invalid symbol), or performance considerations. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 action. It could be slightly more specific (e.g., mentioning it returns formatted data like quantity or P/L), but it avoids unnecessary words and gets straight to the point.

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 for the single parameter, the description is minimally complete. However, with no annotations and sibling tools like 'get_all_positions', it should better differentiate usage and clarify behavioral aspects to be fully helpful.

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%, with the parameter 'symbol_or_asset_id' documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., examples, format details, or clarification on 'symbol' vs 'assetId'). Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 verb ('Retrieves and formats') and resource ('details for a specific open position'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_all_positions' or 'close_position', which would require mentioning it's for a single position rather than all positions.

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 like 'get_all_positions' or 'close_position'. It mentions 'specific open position' but doesn't clarify prerequisites (e.g., requires an existing position) or exclusions (e.g., not for closed positions).

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