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 the retrieval action but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, data freshness, or error handling. The description doesn't contradict annotations (none exist), but it fails to provide essential context for safe and effective use.

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 and lists included data types without redundancy. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's scope, making it appropriately sized and well-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, 100% schema coverage, output schema exists), the description is reasonably complete. It specifies the comprehensive nature of the snapshot, and with an output schema, it needn't detail return values. However, it lacks usage context and behavioral details, slightly reducing completeness.

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 schema fully documents parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying retrieval of multiple data types, which doesn't clarify parameter usage. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the 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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('comprehensive snapshots of stock symbols'), listing the included data types (latest trade, quote, minute bar, daily bar, previous daily bar). It distinguishes from siblings like get_stock_bars or get_stock_latest_quote by emphasizing comprehensiveness, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it implies comprehensiveness, it doesn't specify scenarios where this is preferred over more specific tools (e.g., get_stock_latest_quote for just quotes) or mention prerequisites like subscription requirements, despite the input schema hinting at defaults based on subscription.

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