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 a list with symbol, name, and other details, which is helpful, but lacks critical behavioral details such as search scope (e.g., partial matches, case sensitivity), result limits, error handling, or authentication requirements. For a search 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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by parameter and return details. It uses minimal sentences efficiently, though the 'Args' and 'Returns' sections could be integrated more seamlessly. Overall, it's concise with little waste.

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 moderate complexity (search function with 1 parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and parameter semantics but lacks usage guidelines and sufficient behavioral transparency, especially with no annotations. The output schema likely handles return values, so that gap is mitigated.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by explaining the 'query' parameter as a search query for company name or partial ticker. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't detail format constraints or examples, so it only partially fills the gap.

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: searching for stock symbols using company names or tickers. It specifies the verb 'search' and resource 'stock symbols', making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'robinhood_get_quote' or 'robinhood_get_fundamentals', which might also involve symbol lookup, so it misses full sibling distinction.

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 mentions the search capability but doesn't clarify scenarios like initial symbol discovery versus retrieving detailed data from other tools. With multiple sibling tools available, this lack of context leaves usage ambiguous.

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