My strategies: id, name, version, latest FARM.
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": "list_strategies"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions returned fields but does not state read-only behavior, authentication requirements, scope, pagination, or ordering, leaving key behavioral traits unaddressed.
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 very short and front-loads the resource and fields without unnecessary wording. Its fragmentary style is terse but not padded, though it could be slightly clearer with an explicit verb.
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 list tool with an output schema, the description is minimally adequate: it indicates user-scoped strategies and some returned fields. However, with no annotations and no usage guidance, it leaves behavioral and authentication context implicit.
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 for the description to clarify. The baseline for this dimension is therefore high.
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 identifies the resource as the user's strategies and lists returned fields (id, name, version, latest FARM), but it is a fragment without an explicit verb or scope statement. Combined with the tool name, the purpose is inferable, but the description itself remains somewhat vague.
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 guidance on when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling tools to use instead. The description gives no usage context beyond the returned fields.
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.