Latest global long/short account ratio per exchange/symbol.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_long_short_ratio"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world operation. The description adds freshness and aggregation scope ('latest global ... per exchange/symbol'), but does not disclose update frequency, venue coverage, or other behavioral details beyond the annotations.
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 compact sentence with zero filler. The key scope qualifiers, 'latest', 'global', and 'per exchange/symbol', are front-loaded.
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 zero-parameter read-only tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description supplies the essential metric and scope. Additional details such as update cadence or exact venue coverage would help, but are not critical for correct invocation.
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 input parameters, so there is no parameter semantics burden. The description's mention of exchange/symbol refers to result scope rather than 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 states a specific metric, 'long/short account ratio', and its scope: latest, global, per exchange/symbol. It is clear enough to distinguish from general market tools, though it does not explicitly name sibling positioning tools like get_positioning_regime or get_top_traders.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor are alternatives named. The word 'Latest' implies a current snapshot rather than historical retrieval, but the description leaves the agent to infer this.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.