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 discloses that the operation is 'read-only' and describes the return format (list with specific fields), which are useful behavioral traits. However, it lacks details on potential limitations (e.g., rate limits, authentication needs, or data freshness), leaving gaps for a tool with no annotation support.

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 highly concise and well-structured: two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose, read-only nature, and return format. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 has 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists (implied by context signals), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose, behavioral aspect (read-only), and output semantics. However, with no annotations, it could benefit from more context on limitations or error handling, but the output schema likely handles return values.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately focuses on output semantics by detailing the returned fields (chain symbol, type, strike price, expiration, quantity), adding value beyond the schema. This compensates well for the lack of parameters.

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 current options positions' specifies the verb (get) and resource (options positions). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'robinhood_get_positions' by specifying 'options' positions. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other siblings beyond the resource type.

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 implies usage context through '(read-only)' and by listing return fields, suggesting it's for retrieving options position data. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'robinhood_get_positions' or other data-fetching siblings, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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