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 describes the return format ('dict mapping stock symbols to position details') and lists key details included (price, quantity, etc.), which adds useful context. However, it doesn't mention behavioral aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, or whether it's a read-only operation, leaving gaps for a tool with no annotations.

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 state the purpose and detail the return format. Every word adds value, with no wasted text, 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's simplicity (0 parameters, output schema exists), the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does and the structure of the return data. However, with no annotations and multiple sibling tools, it could benefit from more context on usage or behavioral traits to fully compensate for the lack of structured metadata.

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 the tool's function and output without redundant parameter details, earning a baseline score of 4 for zero-parameter tools.

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 stock positions with details.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('stock positions'), and scope ('all current'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'robinhood_get_portfolio' or 'robinhood_get_options_positions' 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'robinhood_get_portfolio' (likely broader portfolio data) and 'robinhood_get_options_positions' (specific to options), there's no indication of when this tool is preferred or what distinguishes it from similar tools.

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