alpaca-mcp-server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves data ('Get'), implying a read-only operation, but does not clarify aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or data freshness (e.g., real-time vs. delayed). For a financial data tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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: 'Get the latest trade for one or more stocks.' It is front-loaded with the core purpose, has zero wasted words, and is appropriately sized for a straightforward tool. Every part of the sentence earns its place by clearly conveying the action and scope.

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) and the presence of both a rich input schema (100% coverage) and an output schema (implied by context signals), the description is reasonably complete. It states the core functionality, and the structured fields handle parameter details and return values. However, it lacks behavioral context (e.g., subscription impacts on 'feed' defaults), which slightly reduces completeness for a financial data 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%, meaning the input schema fully documents all parameters ('symbols', 'feed', 'currency') with detailed descriptions, including defaults and enum values for 'feed'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 without compensating value.

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: 'Get the latest trade for one or more stocks.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('latest trade'), and scope ('one or more stocks'), making the intent unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_stock_trades' or 'get_stock_latest_quote', which slightly reduces clarity in a crowded toolset.

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 lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., subscription requirements implied by the 'feed' parameter default) or comparisons to sibling tools like 'get_stock_trades' (which might fetch historical trades) or 'get_stock_latest_quote' (for quote data). This omission leaves the agent without explicit usage direction.

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