Robinhood MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return includes 'portfolio profile with equity, extended hours equity, withdrawable amount, and other account details,' which adds some context about data scope. However, it lacks critical details such as authentication requirements, rate limits, data freshness, or error handling, leaving significant gaps for safe and effective use.

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, with two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and return details. The first sentence states the core function, and the second elaborates on the output, with no wasted words or redundancy. It's front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 (0 parameters, output schema exists), the description is adequate but not complete. It explains what the tool does and hints at the return content, but with no annotations and an output schema present, it could benefit from more behavioral context (e.g., authentication needs). The output schema likely covers return values, so the description doesn't need to detail them, but overall completeness is minimal viable.

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 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on the output. This meets the baseline for a parameter-less tool, as it doesn't need to compensate for any schema gaps.

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 current portfolio value and performance metrics.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('portfolio value and performance metrics'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'robinhood_get_positions' or 'robinhood_get_dividends', which might provide overlapping or related data.

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 contexts where other tools might be more appropriate, such as using 'robinhood_get_positions' for detailed holdings or 'robinhood_get_historicals' for time-series data. This lack of comparative context limits its utility for an AI agent.

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