Robinhood MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions returning 'list of watchlist items with instrument details', which gives some behavioral context about the output format. However, it lacks critical details: whether this requires authentication, rate limits, error conditions, or if it's a read-only operation (implied by 'Get' but not explicit). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 core purpose, followed by structured 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy. The two-sentence structure is efficient and clear.

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 optional parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose, parameter meaning, and output format at a high level. However, for a financial tool with no annotations, it could benefit from mentioning authentication or data freshness, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 semantics beyond the input schema. The schema has 0% description coverage (just a string parameter 'name'), but the description explains that 'name' is the 'Watchlist name' with a default of 'Default'. This clarifies the parameter's purpose and default behavior, compensating well for the low schema coverage.

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 stocks in a watchlist' with the verb 'Get' and resource 'stocks in a watchlist'. It distinguishes from siblings like robinhood_get_portfolio or robinhood_get_positions by specifying watchlist content. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., robinhood_get_quote might overlap for individual stocks).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description doesn't mention when this is preferable to robinhood_get_portfolio for tracking specific stocks, or how it differs from robinhood_search_symbols for finding instruments. It only states what it does, not when to choose it.

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