alpaca-mcp-server

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations. While annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, the description clarifies idempotency behavior for client_order_id ('you can safely retry with the same value'), explains mutual exclusivity rules (qty vs notional), and specifies conditional requirements (e.g., extended_hours only works with specific type/time_in_force combinations).

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 well-structured with a brief purpose statement followed by detailed parameter documentation. While lengthy due to the high parameter count, every sentence adds necessary information. The formatting with clear parameter bullets enhances readability, though the initial purpose statement could be more front-loaded with critical usage context.

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 high complexity (16 parameters, destructive operation) and 0% schema description coverage, the description provides substantial parameter documentation and behavioral context. With an output schema present, the description appropriately doesn't explain return values. However, it lacks broader usage context like authentication requirements, rate limits, or error scenarios.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden of explaining parameters. It comprehensively documents all 16 parameters with clear semantics, including examples (e.g., 'AAPL', 'SPY'), valid values, conditional requirements, mutual exclusivity rules, and behavioral implications (e.g., order_class automatically set to 'bracket' when take_profit or stop_loss params are provided).

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 as 'Place a stock or ETF order', which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'place_crypto_order' or 'place_option_order', though the distinction is implied by the 'stock or ETF' specification.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites (like account permissions or market hours), nor does it reference sibling tools for related functions like 'cancel_order_by_id' or 'replace_order_by_id'.

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