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 offers minimal behavioral context. It mentions formatting output but doesn't disclose rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness, error conditions, or pagination behavior. The description doesn't contradict annotations (none exist), but fails to provide essential operational details.

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?

Single sentence efficiently conveys core functionality with zero wasted words. Front-loaded with the main action and resource, followed by specific data inclusions. Every element earns its place.

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 existence of an output schema (which handles return values), 100% schema coverage, and relatively simple functionality, the description is reasonably complete. However, for a financial data tool with no annotations, it should ideally mention data latency, subscription requirements, or typical use cases to better guide the agent.

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 no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain symbol format requirements, feed implications, or usage patterns. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does all the documentation work.

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 ('retrieves and formats'), resource ('latest quote for one or more option contracts'), and scope ('including bid/ask prices, sizes, and exchange information'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_option_chain (which provides chain data) or get_option_snapshot (which may include different data points).

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 implies usage for obtaining real-time quote data for options, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_option_snapshot or get_option_latest_trade. No prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison to sibling tools are mentioned.

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