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. It states the tool returns 'list of OHLCV data points,' which adds some behavioral context about the output format. However, it doesn't disclose critical traits like rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness, or error handling, leaving significant gaps for a data-fetching tool.

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: the first sentence states the purpose, followed by a structured 'Args' section and return details. Every sentence earns its place, but the 'Args' label is slightly redundant since parameters are documented in the schema.

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 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description does a decent job explaining parameters and output (OHLCV). However, it lacks behavioral details like rate limits or auth, and while an output schema exists, the description still explains return values, which is redundant but not harmful. It's adequate but has clear 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 0%, but the description compensates well by explaining all three parameters: 'symbol' as 'Stock ticker symbol,' 'interval' with enumerated values and time units, and 'span' with enumerated time spans. It adds meaning beyond the bare schema, though it could detail format constraints (e.g., symbol casing).

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 historical price data for a stock.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('historical price data'), making it easy to understand. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'robinhood_get_quote' (which likely provides current data) or 'robinhood_get_fundamentals' (which provides company data), missing full sibling 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention siblings like 'robinhood_get_quote' for current prices or 'robinhood_get_fundamentals' for company metrics, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied by the purpose 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.