Questrade MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Refresh' implies a mutation operation that likely requires authentication credentials, but the description doesn't specify what happens to the old token, whether this is rate-limited, what permissions are needed, or what the response contains. For a security-sensitive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 perfectly concise at just four words ('Refresh the API access token'). It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with zero wasted words or unnecessary elaboration.

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?

For a token refresh operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what credentials are needed, what the new token replaces, whether old tokens remain valid, what format the response takes, or potential error conditions. Given the security implications and lack of structured documentation, more context is needed.

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 tool has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters since none exist, and it correctly reflects this by not mentioning any inputs.

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 'Refresh the API access token' clearly states the verb ('refresh') and resource ('API access token'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its siblings (all financial data retrieval tools), which would require a 5.

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 (like when tokens expire), frequency recommendations, or error conditions that might trigger its use. Without any usage context, agents must infer when token refreshing is needed.

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