Use this when the user asks which exchanges are currently available in TraderSpy smart-money tracking.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | Tracked exchanges and whether each is currently enabled |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds minimal behavioral context ('currently available' implies a live query) but does not disclose return format, limitations, or other behavioral traits. With annotations present, this meets the baseline.
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, front-loaded sentence that directly states when to use the tool. No wasted words or redundant information.
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 an output schema, the description is sufficient. It covers the trigger condition and the resource. It does not enumerate return fields, but the output schema likely covers that. Minor gap: no mention of output format or any caveats, but not critical for such a simple tool.
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, so schema coverage is 100% by default. The description does not need to explain parameters. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and there is no missing parameter information.
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: to get exchanges currently available in TraderSpy smart-money tracking. It uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('exchanges'), and the context 'currently available' distinguishes it from static reference tools.
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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: 'when the user asks which exchanges are currently available.' It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention sibling tools, but the context is clear enough for a simple list endpoint.
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.
Most tools are clearly distinct, targeting different data categories (market data, signals, traders, account). Some potential overlap exists between get_price, get_candles, and get_market_stats, but their descriptions clarify the specific use cases. Overall, an agent can differentiate them reliably.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with the verb 'get' and a descriptive noun (e.g., get_candles, get_signals, get_trader_profile). This uniform naming makes it very predictable for an agent.
With 15 tools, the count is within the ideal range for a domain-specific server. Each tool serves a distinct purpose related to market data, signals, and trader analytics, and none feel redundant or extraneous.
The tool set covers core read operations for market data, signals, traders, and account info, which aligns with the apparent purpose of a data-provider server. Minor gaps include lack of write operations (e.g., placing trades) or historical signal details beyond individual IDs, but these are not critical for a data-oriented service.