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 states what the tool does but lacks details on traits like rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness (e.g., real-time vs. delayed), or error handling. This is inadequate for a tool that likely involves external data fetching, leaving significant gaps in understanding its operational 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?

The description is a single, clear sentence that front-loads the core functionality without unnecessary words. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 (fetching financial data with multiple parameters), the description is minimal but functional. The presence of an output schema means return values don't need explanation, and the 100% schema coverage handles parameters. However, the lack of annotations and behavioral context makes it incomplete for safe and effective use, as it omits operational details like data sources or limitations.

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 description mentions 'one or more stocks', which aligns with the 'symbols' parameter, but adds no further semantic context beyond what the input schema provides. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the schema already fully documents parameters like 'feed' and 'currency'. The description meets the baseline but doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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 'Get' and the resource 'latest minute bar for one or more stocks', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_stock_bars' (which likely retrieves historical bars) or 'get_stock_latest_quote' (which retrieves quotes rather than bars), so it doesn't reach the highest 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. For example, it doesn't mention when to choose this over 'get_stock_bars' for historical data or 'get_stock_latest_quote' for quote data, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. This leaves the agent with minimal contextual direction.

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