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. While 'Remove' implies a destructive mutation, the description doesn't specify permissions required, whether the operation is idempotent, error conditions (e.g., if the symbol isn't in the watchlist), or what happens on success (e.g., confirmation message). This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 with no wasted words. It front-loads the key action ('Remove') and efficiently specifies the target and context. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 that there's an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and 100% schema coverage for parameters, the description is minimally adequate. However, for a destructive mutation tool, it lacks critical behavioral details like error handling or side effects, which would improve completeness despite the structured data.

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 already fully documents both parameters ('watchlist_id' as a UUID and 'symbol' as the asset to remove). The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or constraints (e.g., symbol case-sensitivity). This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 action ('Remove') and target ('asset by symbol from a specific watchlist'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'delete_watchlist_by_id' or 'update_watchlist_by_id', which also modify watchlists but in different ways.

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 prerequisites (e.g., the asset must already be in the watchlist) or compare it to sibling tools like 'update_watchlist_by_id' that might also handle asset removal. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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