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 effectively describes the destructive nature of the operation ('replaces the entire watchlist') and warns about data loss if 'symbols' is omitted, which is crucial for a mutation tool. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or error handling, leaving some behavioral aspects uncovered.

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 concise and front-loaded, with two sentences that efficiently convey the purpose, critical behavior, and usage warning. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 complexity as a mutation operation with no annotations but an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers the purpose, usage guidelines, and key behavioral risks. The presence of an output schema means return values are documented elsewhere, so the description appropriately focuses on input behavior. A minor gap is the lack of context on permissions or error cases.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds value by emphasizing the importance of the 'symbols' parameter and explaining its role in full replacement, but it does not provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema specifies. 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 ('Update an existing watchlist') and specifies the resource ('watchlist'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'create_watchlist' and 'delete_watchlist_by_id'. It explicitly notes the full replacement behavior, which adds specificity beyond a generic update.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: for updating an existing watchlist with full replacement. It warns against partial updates by stating 'IMPORTANT: this replaces the entire watchlist' and specifies that 'symbols' must include all desired symbols, implicitly distinguishing it from tools like 'add_asset_to_watchlist_by_id' or 'remove_asset_from_watchlist_by_id' for incremental changes.

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