MCP Stock Market

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. It mentions using the Alpha Vantage API, which hints at external data sourcing, but fails to disclose critical traits like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or the format of returned news. This is a significant gap for a tool with no 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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy 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 (external API call with no annotations or output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects like rate limits, error cases, and the structure of returned news, which are crucial for effective tool use. The high schema coverage doesn't compensate for these missing contextual elements.

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 description adds minimal meaning beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage and fully documents the 'symbol' parameter. It implies the parameter is used to fetch news, but doesn't provide additional context like valid symbol formats or examples beyond what's in the schema. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Get') and resource ('latest news for a stock ticker symbol'), making it easy to understand what it does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'getCompanyOverview' or 'getIntraday', which might also provide stock-related information, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, such as when to prefer 'getCompanyOverview' for fundamental data or 'getIntraday' for price updates, leaving the agent with no usage instructions.

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