Our AI trader: training status, latest exam on held-out weeks after fees, released decisions (free: 24 h delay).
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_ai_trader"
}
}| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that exam results are on held-out weeks after fees and that released decisions have a 24-hour delay on the free tier, which is meaningful operational context. However, it does not clarify authentication needs, whether data is live or cached beyond the delay note, or the response format.
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 definition is a single compact sentence fragment with the resource front-loaded and zero wasted words. It is telegraphic and slightly cryptic ('latest exam on held-out weeks after fees'), but structurally efficient.
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 retrieval tool with no output schema, the description should fully explain what is returned. It lists categories of returned information but does not describe the shape or meaning of fields such as 'released decisions' or how training status and exam results are structured, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.
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 takes zero parameters, so the schema has no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4, and nothing in the description undermines that.
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 names the resource ('Our AI trader') and enumerates the specific information returned: training status, latest exam on held-out weeks after fees, and released decisions. It is clearly a retrieval tool and is distinguishable from siblings like get_ai_levels or backtest_report, though it is phrased as a terse noun list rather than a full verb statement.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as backtest_report or get_ai_levels. The content list implies the tool is for checking AI trader status and performance, but no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are stated.
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.