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 for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a retrieval operation but doesn't mention whether it's paginated (though page_token parameter hints at this), what authentication is required, rate limits, error conditions, or what the output contains. For a 14-parameter tool with complex filtering, this is inadequate behavioral 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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a retrieval tool and front-loads the core functionality 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's complexity (14 parameters, filtering capabilities) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. The output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the description should still provide more context about the tool's behavior, typical use cases, and relationship to sibling tools given the rich parameter set.

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 description mentions 'underlying symbol(s)' which aligns with one parameter, but with 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all 14 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain parameter interactions, default behaviors, or provide usage examples. 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 ('option contracts') with scope ('for underlying symbol(s)'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_option_chain or get_option_contract, but the verb+resource combination is specific enough for basic understanding.

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_chain or get_option_contract. There's no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or comparison with sibling tools that might offer similar functionality. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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