Robinhood MCP

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 that the tool 'Returns list of earnings reports' but doesn't specify behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or whether it's a read-only operation. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose. The 'Args' and 'Returns' sections add necessary details without redundancy. However, the structure could be slightly improved by integrating the parameter and return information more seamlessly, but it remains efficient with minimal waste.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose, parameter meaning, and return value overview. With no annotations, it could benefit from more behavioral details, but the output schema likely handles return specifics, making this adequate for the context.

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 meaningful context beyond the input schema. The schema only indicates 'symbol' as a required string parameter with 0% description coverage. The description clarifies that 'symbol' is a 'Stock ticker symbol,' providing essential semantics that the schema lacks. This compensates well for the low 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 tool's purpose: 'Get earnings data for a stock.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('earnings data'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'robinhood_get_fundamentals' or 'robinhood_get_historicals', which might also provide financial data, so it doesn't reach a perfect 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 sibling tools or explain scenarios where this tool is preferred, such as for earnings-specific analysis compared to general fundamentals. There's no context on prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage unclear.

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