Questrade MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the search action but doesn't describe what 'symbols' refer to (e.g., financial instruments, programming symbols), the search scope (e.g., partial matches, case sensitivity), return format, pagination behavior beyond the offset parameter, or any rate limits or authentication requirements. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with financial or technical data.

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 extremely concise with a single, clear sentence that front-loads the core functionality. There's no wasted language or redundancy, making it efficient for quick understanding.

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 search tool. It doesn't explain what 'symbols' are in this context (e.g., stock symbols, currency pairs), the expected return format, or how results are structured (e.g., list of objects with fields). This leaves the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively beyond basic parameter passing.

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 mentions 'by prefix' which aligns with the 'prefix' parameter in the schema, but adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema already provides (100% coverage). The schema fully describes both parameters, including the offset's pagination role and default value, so the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to given the high 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 with a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('symbols'), and specifies the search method ('by prefix'). However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'get_symbol', which might retrieve a single symbol rather than searching multiple symbols by prefix.

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 like 'get_symbol' or other sibling tools. There's no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the tool name alone.

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