alpaca-mcp-server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses important behavioral traits: the response can be very large (performance warning) and mentions pagination via 'next_page_token' (implied in the limit parameter context). It doesn't cover authentication needs, rate limits, or error conditions, but provides useful operational context.

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?

Two well-structured sentences: first states purpose and scope, second provides usage guidance with specific parameter examples. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy. Front-loaded with the core functionality followed by practical advice.

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 (12 parameters, financial data domain) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, data scope, performance warning, and filtering strategy. Could be improved with more explicit behavioral guidance given no annotations, but adequate for a read operation with good schema documentation.

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 all 12 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning four specific parameters (type, strike_price_gte/lte, expiration_date, limit) as examples for narrowing results, but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema descriptions.

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 the resource 'option chain data for an underlying symbol', specifying the data included (latest trade, quote, implied volatility, greeks). It distinguishes from siblings like get_option_bars or get_option_contracts by focusing on the full chain with filtering capabilities.

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 ('to narrow results') by listing specific filtering parameters (type, strike_price_gte/lte, expiration_date, limit). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives among sibling tools for different data needs.

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