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 the tool retrieves data, implying a read-only operation, but lacks details on permissions, error handling, rate limits, or response format. This is insufficient for a tool with potential complexity in financial contexts.

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, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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 low complexity (retrieving a single order), 100% schema coverage, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is mostly complete. However, it lacks behavioral context like error cases or authentication needs, which slightly reduces completeness for a financial API tool.

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 input schema fully documents both parameters ('order_id' and 'nested'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining the implications of the 'nested' parameter. This meets 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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('a single order by its ID'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_orders' (plural retrieval) or 'get_order_by_client_id' (alternative identifier), which prevents a perfect score.

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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_orders' for multiple orders or 'get_order_by_client_id' for client IDs, nor does it specify prerequisites such as needing an order ID. This leaves the agent without contextual usage instructions.

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