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 but only states it 'retrieves' data without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what happens if the symbol/ID is invalid. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 purpose. There's zero waste—every word earns its place by specifying the action, resource, and input method without unnecessary elaboration.

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), 100% schema coverage for the single parameter, and no complex nested structures, the description is reasonably complete for a simple retrieval tool. However, the lack of behavioral context and usage guidelines relative to siblings leaves room for improvement.

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 the single parameter 'symbol_or_id' with its type and description. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the parameter is required for retrieval. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 action ('Retrieves') and resource ('a single option contract'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_option_contracts' (plural) or 'get_option_chain', which might retrieve multiple contracts or structured chain data.

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_option_contracts' or 'get_option_chain'. It mentions the input parameter but doesn't clarify scenarios where retrieving a single contract is preferred over batch operations or chain queries.

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