Trading 212 MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool requests an export but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this triggers an asynchronous process, expected response format (e.g., file download link), rate limits, permissions required, or potential side effects (e.g., data processing delays). 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 with zero waste. It front-loads the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place without redundancy.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 6 parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., async vs. sync, response handling), error conditions, or integration context. For a tool that likely involves data processing and export generation, this minimal description leaves critical gaps.

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 fully documents all 6 parameters (timeFrom, timeTo, and boolean flags). The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond implying a time period is required, which is already covered by the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Request a CSV export') and resource ('account data'), with scope ('for a specified time period'). It distinguishes from siblings like get_account_summary or get_transactions by focusing on export generation rather than direct data retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all potential export-related tools (none exist in siblings).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication needs), typical use cases, or comparisons with sibling tools like get_account_summary for aggregated data. Usage is implied by the action but lacks explicit context.

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