Check the Option Desk data mode, source, refresh time, and public licence gate before requesting figures. No live feed or hosted backtest tool exists, even with uploaded history. Do not offer hosted backtests.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations by stating that no live feed or hosted backtest capability exists even with uploaded history, and that the agent should not offer hosted backtests. This exposes a real limitation the agent would otherwise not know from the read-only, idempotent annotations alone.
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 three sentences, each contributing unique and necessary guidance. It front-loads what the tool checks, then clarifies a common misconception about live feed and hosted backtests. There is no repetition, filler, or unnecessary detail.
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 tool with no parameters, a clear purpose statement, and an existing output schema, this description covers the essential guidance: what to inspect, when to call it, and what not to promise. The existence of an output schema means the agent can learn the return format from that field, and the description supplies the operational context around it.
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 the input schema is complete and the baseline score is 4. The description does not need to explain any parameter semantics; it refers only to fields returned by the tool 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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Check the Option Desk data mode, source, refresh time, and public licence gate.' This distinguishes the tool from sibling plotting, snapshot, and strategy tools and tells an agent exactly what status information is available. It is not a tautology or vague restatement of the tool name.
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?
It states when to use the tool: 'before requesting figures.' It also explicitly warns that no live feed or hosted backtest tool exists and instructs not to offer hosted backtests. However, it does not mention alternative sibling tools by name or describe a condition for choosing another tool. This is clear but not fully explicit about alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.