alpaca-mcp-server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions retrieving latest trades but does not specify data freshness, rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or output format. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice, especially for a financial data tool.

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 directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to parse quickly, and there is no wasted verbiage or redundancy.

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 moderate complexity (retrieving financial data with two parameters) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context on data sources, limitations, or integration with sibling tools, leaving room for improvement in completeness despite the output schema covering return details.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, detailing both parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or edge cases. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.

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 'latest trade for one or more option contracts', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_option_trades' or 'get_option_latest_quote', which could provide similar or overlapping functionality, leaving some ambiguity in sibling distinction.

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 such as 'get_option_trades' for historical trades or 'get_option_latest_quote' for quotes. It lacks context on prerequisites, timing, or specific use cases, offering only a basic statement of function without usage instructions.

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