Questrade MCP Server

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 states the tool retrieves 'detailed information' but doesn't specify what that entails (e.g., metadata, specifications, or real-time data), whether it's a read-only operation, any rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic purpose.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Get detailed information') and resource ('for a specific symbol'), making it easy to parse. There is no wasted language, and it appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that retrieves 'detailed information'. It doesn't explain what information is returned (e.g., symbol name, type, market data), potential response formats, or any behavioral traits like caching or errors. For a retrieval tool with no structured support, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.

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 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'symbolId' clearly documented as 'Symbol ID to get details for'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 action ('Get detailed information') and resource ('for a specific symbol'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_symbols' (which likely searches rather than retrieves specific details) and 'get_quotes' (which might provide pricing data rather than comprehensive details). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, such as 'get_candles' or 'get_orders', which might also retrieve symbol-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 prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid symbol ID), exclusions (e.g., not for searching or listing symbols), or comparisons to siblings like 'search_symbols' (for finding symbols) or 'get_quotes' (for price data). The agent must infer usage from the name and context alone.

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