Robinhood MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral context. It mentions the return format ('list of dividend payments with amount, payable date, record date, and instrument details') but doesn't disclose authentication needs, rate limits, pagination, or whether this is a read-only operation. The description doesn't contradict annotations (none exist), but fails to provide essential behavioral information.

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 and well-structured. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second sentence efficiently describes the return format. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 simplicity (no parameters, has output schema), the description is minimally adequate. The output schema presumably documents the return structure, so the description's brief mention of return details is sufficient. However, for a financial data tool with no annotations, more context about authentication, rate limits, or data freshness would improve completeness.

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 tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool where the schema fully documents the absence of inputs.

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: 'Get all dividend payments received' specifies the verb (get) and resource (dividend payments). It distinguishes from siblings like 'robinhood_get_earnings' or 'robinhood_get_portfolio' by focusing specifically on dividends, but doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the description implies it's for retrieving dividend data, there's no mention of when to choose this over other financial data tools like 'robinhood_get_earnings' or 'robinhood_get_fundamentals', nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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