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. It mentions 'comprehensive snapshots' but does not disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or data freshness. The description is accurate but lacks operational context beyond the basic function.

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 and lists key data points. There is no wasted language, and it directly communicates the tool's function 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 complexity of 5 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and the presence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the tool's purpose and data scope, but could benefit from more behavioral context (e.g., data sources or limitations) since annotations are absent.

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 fully documents all parameters. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining interactions between parameters or providing examples. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles 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 verb 'Retrieves' and the resource 'comprehensive snapshots of option contracts', specifying the data included (latest trade, quote, implied volatility, and Greeks). It distinguishes from siblings like get_option_chain or get_option_contract by focusing on snapshots with specific financial metrics.

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 retrieving option contract snapshots with detailed metrics, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_option_chain (for chain data) or get_option_contract (for contract details). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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