list_symbolsUse to check whether DAMO covers an asset and which symbol name to use. Symbols covered by DAMO, with available layers and any timeframe not yet available.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | Yes | ||
| symbols | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "count": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "symbols": {
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "layers": {
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "symbol": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "timeframes": {
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "symbol"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "count",
+ "symbols"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds useful behavioral context by noting that results include available layers and 'any timeframe not yet available,' which discloses coverage limitations 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 two tight sentences, with the usage guidance front-loaded before the output content. Every phrase contributes to helping an agent decide when to call it and what it returns.
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 listing tool with an output schema and clear annotations, the description is nearly complete: it says when to use it and summarizes the returned coverage details. It could be fuller only by mentioning sibling-tool alternatives, which is already a usage-guideline gap.
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 there are no parameter semantics to explain. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter schema establishes a baseline of 4.
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 clear purpose: check DAMO coverage and identify the symbol name to use, and it specifies that results include covered symbols, available layers, and unavailable timeframes. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling state-related tools, so it falls short of 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 opening phrase 'Use to check whether DAMO covers an asset and which symbol name to use' gives clear usage context. It does not state when not to use this tool or name alternatives such as get_state_definitions, so it lacks the explicit routing needed for a 5.
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.