Full report of a finished run: FARM, PnL, WR, DD, regimes, trades.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"run_id": "<run_id>"
},
"name": "backtest_report"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| run_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool returns a full report for a finished run and lists the report sections, but it does not state that the operation is read-only, what happens if the run is unfinished or missing, whether the report is large or paginated, or what permissions are required.
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 with no wasted wording. The acronyms FARM, PnL, WR, and DD reduce immediate clarity, but the sentence itself is appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool.
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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description gives a useful high-level list of returned sections. It is still incomplete because it omits how to source run_id and does not address failure conditions such as requesting a report before the run has finished.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate for the single required run_id parameter. It does not explain what a run_id is, where to find one, or any format constraints, leaving the parameter semantics to the bare schema title.
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 resource and scope: a full report for a finished run, and it enumerates the report contents (FARM, PnL, WR, DD, regimes, trades). This distinguishes it reasonably well from a status-checking sibling, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
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 phrase 'finished run' implies the tool should be used after a backtest has completed, which gives useful context. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it, no named alternative for checking progress, and no prerequisite details such as how to obtain a valid run_id.
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.