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 mentions the tool 'Get analyst ratings summary' and describes the return format, but it doesn't cover important behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. For a tool with no 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 in the first sentence. The additional details in 'Args' and 'Returns' sections are useful and non-redundant. It avoids unnecessary fluff, but the structure could be slightly improved by integrating the 'Args' and 'Returns' more seamlessly into the main text.

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) and the presence of an output schema, the description is somewhat complete. It explains the purpose and return values, but lacks behavioral details and usage guidelines. With no annotations, it should do more to compensate, such as mentioning read-only nature or potential errors, making it only adequate for basic understanding.

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 description adds meaningful context for the parameter 'symbol' by specifying it as a 'Stock ticker symbol,' which clarifies its purpose beyond the schema's basic type definition. With schema description coverage at 0% and only one parameter, this compensation is effective. However, it doesn't provide examples or constraints (e.g., format like uppercase), so it's not a perfect score.

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 analyst ratings summary for a stock.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('analyst ratings summary for a stock'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'robinhood_get_fundamentals' or 'robinhood_get_quote', which might also provide related financial 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. It doesn't mention sibling tools or suggest scenarios where this tool is preferred over others, such as for investment analysis or market sentiment. This lack of context leaves the agent without clear usage instructions, making it harder to select the right tool among similar options.

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