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 states the tool retrieves data (implied read-only) and lists example return fields, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or data freshness. For a data-fetching tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 are structured but could be more integrated; the second sentence feels slightly redundant. Overall, it's 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 annotations, but an output schema exists (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose, parameter meaning, and example return fields, though it lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines, which holds it back from a perfect score.

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 input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, but the description adds context by specifying 'symbol: Stock ticker symbol,' which clarifies the parameter's meaning. However, it doesn't provide additional details like format constraints or examples, so it meets the baseline for minimal compensation without fully enriching the schema.

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 fundamental data for a stock.' It specifies the verb 'Get' and resource 'fundamental data for a stock,' which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like robinhood_get_quote or robinhood_get_ratings, which might also provide related data, so it falls short of 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. With siblings like robinhood_get_quote (likely for price data) and robinhood_get_ratings (likely for analyst ratings), there's no indication of when this tool is preferred or what distinguishes it, leaving usage unclear.

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