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 and adds valuable behavioral context: it explains what happens when an order was replaced (returns original with replaced_by field), which isn't obvious from the name or schema. It doesn't cover error cases, permissions, or rate limits, but provides important domain-specific behavior.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste: the first states the core purpose, the second adds crucial behavioral nuance about replaced orders. Every word earns its place, and the most important information comes first.

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?

For a single-parameter read operation with 100% schema coverage and an output schema (implied by context signals), the description is complete: it explains what the tool does, distinguishes it from similar tools, and adds important domain behavior about replaced orders that wouldn't be in structured fields.

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 parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (client_order_id is clearly defined there), meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 'a single order', specifying it's by 'client order ID'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_order_by_id' (which likely uses a different ID type) and 'get_orders' (which retrieves multiple orders).

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 context by specifying 'by client order ID', suggesting this tool is for when you have the client-assigned ID rather than another identifier. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives like 'get_order_by_id' for system IDs.

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