List market templates available for opening new markets (crypto price binary, sports, election, etc).
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": "pax.composer_templates_list"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | No |
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 behavioral burden. It does not state that this is a read-only enumeration, whether results are paginated, whether auth is required, or what the result set looks like — only that templates exist. The 'List' verb weakly implies read-only, but nothing more is disclosed.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and its purpose are stated immediately. It is appropriately sized, though the brevity is partly under-specification rather than disciplined concision.
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 low-complexity list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns categorically but omits the parameter's meaning, pagination behavior, and any usage constraints. Minimum viable, with clear gaps.
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% and the sole parameter 'kind' is never mentioned in the description. The listed examples (crypto/sports/election) gesturally overlap with possible 'kind' values but are not presented as filter values, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.
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?
States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('market templates') and clarifies what the templates are for — opening new markets — with concrete examples (crypto price binary, sports, election). The singular sibling pax.composer_template_get is not named, but the list/get distinction is inferable from the 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?
The clause 'available for opening new markets' implies the context of use (browsing templates before creating a market), but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no routing to or away from the sibling composer_template_get.
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.