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 it mentions that 'Only the fields you provide will be changed' (a useful partial update behavior), it doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, whether changes are reversible, or what the response contains. For a financial account configuration tool, this is inadequate 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 perfectly concise - a single sentence that communicates the core functionality efficiently. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information. The structure is front-loaded with the main action, followed by an important behavioral detail about partial updates.

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 means the description doesn't need to explain return values) and the input schema has 100% coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, for a mutation tool in a financial trading context with no annotations, it should provide more behavioral context about permissions, side effects, and error handling to be truly complete.

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 all 10 parameters with their types, enums, and descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to the scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 ('Updates') and resource ('account configuration settings'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It specifies that multiple settings can be updated at once, which is helpful context. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_account_config' or 'get_account_info', though the update vs. get distinction is implied.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication requirements), when not to use it, or what happens if certain conditions aren't met. For a mutation tool in a financial context, this is a significant gap in usage instructions.

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