Get tool details

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

Annotations already declare the safe read-only and closed-world profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds valuable uncovered context by listing what the record contains (assets, live vs paper, approval/safety controls, pricing, rate limits, source, last-checked date) and signals data provenance/freshness, which goes beyond the annotations.

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?

A single dense sentence with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. Every listed field contributes useful information about the return payload.

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?

With no output schema and a fully documented single parameter, the description does the necessary work of enumerating return fields. It is largely complete, though it does not describe the response shape or behavior when the slug is unknown.

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?

There is one parameter, and schema coverage is 100% with an example value ('alpaca-mcp-server') in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema fully documents the input.

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 gives a clear verb+resource ('Full sourced record for one tool') and enumerates the record contents, so an agent knows this is a single-item detail lookup. It does not explicitly name the sibling it contrasts with (search_tools), but 'for one tool' implies the distinction.

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?

Usage is only implied by the singular scope: fetch details for one identified tool. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as search_tools or compare_brokers.

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