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 'retrieves and formats' but doesn't specify whether this is a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, or details the formatting behavior. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its traits.

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 action ('retrieves and formats') and resource ('latest quote for one or more stocks'). There is no wasted verbiage, making it appropriately sized and structured.

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 (3 parameters, 1 required), 100% schema coverage, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is mostly complete. However, it lacks behavioral context (e.g., read-only nature, formatting details) and usage guidelines, which are minor gaps in an otherwise well-supported 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, providing detailed explanations for all parameters (symbols, feed, currency). The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already documents, such as clarifying the format of symbols or feed implications. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does 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 formats') and resource ('latest quote for one or more stocks'), making the purpose specific. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_stock_quotes' or 'get_stock_snapshot', which likely retrieve similar data but with different scopes or formats.

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_stock_quotes' for historical quotes or 'get_stock_snapshot' for broader data. It lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving usage unclear relative to siblings.

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