Tradingale-mcp

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations confirm read-only safety (readOnlyHint: true). The description adds valuable behavioral context by disclosing the return scope (top 5 cryptos) and specific data fields (Martingale Score, Startingale readings), though it omits details about data freshness or rate limiting.

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?

Two efficiently structured sentences with no redundancy: the first establishes the core function, the second specifies the return payload. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description compensates adequately by detailing what the tool returns (top 5 ranked cryptos with specific metrics). For a simple read-only tool with no parameters, this provides sufficient context for invocation.

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?

With zero parameters in the input schema, the baseline score applies. The description appropriately requires no parameter explanation since the tool takes no arguments.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves a cryptocurrency market overview using specific metrics (Martingale Score 0-5 and Startingale readings). It implies differentiation from siblings like 'list_top_crypto' through its specific ranking methodology, though it doesn't 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 description implies usage context through the mention of specific metrics (Martingale Score), suggesting use when those particular indicators are needed. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over the similar 'list_top_crypto' tool or exclusion criteria.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With readOnlyHint: true in annotations, the description appropriately focuses on adding return-value context since safety is covered. It discloses that the response includes 'score breakdown, parameters, and exchange availability,' which compensates for the missing output schema. However, it omits mentioning the automatic cross-type search behavior (fallback to other asset types) described in the parameter schema.

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 consists of two highly efficient sentences: the first establishes purpose and scope, the second details return contents. There is no redundant or filler text; every phrase conveys specific functional or behavioral information.

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?

Given the simple parameter structure (2 params, 100% schema coverage) and lack of output schema, the description adequately covers the return payload contents. It could be improved by explicitly noting the automatic asset-type fallback behavior in the main description text rather than relying solely on the parameter description, but this is a minor 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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the structured data already fully documents both 'symbol' (with examples) and 'type' (with enum values and default behavior). The description references 'specific crypto, stock, or commodity' which aligns with the parameters conceptually, but adds no syntactic or format details beyond the schema, warranting the baseline score.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves a 'Martingale score and detailed analysis' for specific financial instruments, using distinct terminology ('Martingale') that differentiates it from sibling overview/list tools. It specifies the resource domain (crypto, stock, commodity) and implies single-entity lookup vs. the bulk operations suggested by sibling names like 'list_top_crypto'.

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?

While the word 'specific' implies this is for targeted lookups when a symbol is known, the description lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus 'search_instruments' (for discovery) or the overview tools (for general market data). No prerequisites or exclusion criteria are provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Mentions domain-specific scoring mechanisms (Martingale score, Startingale) beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, but fails to explain what these metrics represent or how they're calculated.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. Front-loaded with primary purpose and secondary filtering capability. No redundant or filler text.

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?

Sufficient for a read-only list operation with no output schema, but misses opportunity to define domain-specific terms (Martingale, Startingale) that would help an agent understand the tool's domain logic.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents both parameters fully. The description references 'minimum Startingale' which aligns with the parameter name but adds no semantic detail beyond the schema's 'Minimum Startingale to include' description.

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?

Description clearly states the specific action (Get), resource (top-rated cryptocurrencies), and unique methodology (Martingale score) that distinguishes it from sibling list_top_stocks and crypto_overview.

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?

Provides implied usage through 'Optionally filter' but lacks explicit when-to-use guidance relative to search_instruments or crypto_overview, and doesn't state prerequisites or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations already indicate this is a read-only operation (readOnlyHint: true), and the description confirms this with 'Get'. It adds domain-specific context by mentioning the 'Martingale score' ranking and 'Startingale' filtering, though it fails to explain what these metrics represent or any pagination behavior.

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 consists of a single 12-word sentence that front-loads the primary action and resource. While efficiently structured with no redundant words, its extreme brevity leaves insufficient room for behavioral context or usage guidelines.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (two optional parameters, no nested objects) and complete schema coverage, the description adequately covers the basic operation but omits explanation of domain-specific terms (Martingale score, Startingale) that would help an agent understand when to use this tool. The lack of output schema is not compensated for in the description.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters (limit and min_startingale), documenting types, ranges, and defaults. The description briefly references the 'minimum Startingale' filter but adds no semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline for high-coverage schemas.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'top-rated stocks' ranked by 'Martingale score'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_top_crypto by specifying the stock domain and unique Martingale scoring mechanism, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools.

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 description mentions 'Optionally filter by minimum Startingale' which implies the filter is not required, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_instruments or stock_overview. There is no discussion of prerequisites or decision criteria for tool selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description complements this by disclosing output structure: it returns top 5-10 instruments with specific metrics (Martingale Score 0-5, Startingale readings). This compensates for the missing output schema.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste: first establishes scope and action, second details the output format and ranking criteria. Information is front-loaded and dense.

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?

Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description adequately describes the return values (ranked list with specific scores). It successfully compensates for missing structured output documentation.

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 input schema has zero parameters, which per the scoring rules establishes a baseline of 4. The description correctly requires no additional parameter clarification.

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 uses specific verbs ('Get', 'Shows') and clearly identifies the resource (market conditions across crypto and stocks). It distinguishes from siblings like crypto_overview and stock_overview by explicitly stating it covers both asset classes, not just one.

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?

While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, the description provides clear context for usage by specifying 'across crypto and stocks,' implying this is the tool for combined market views versus single-asset siblings. It lacks explicit 'when-not-to-use' guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true; description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying 'Returns a ranked list' (addressing the missing output schema) and highlighting the tool's focus on specific scoring algorithms. Does not mention ranking logic or pagination beyond the limit parameter's max constraint.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. First sentence covers action and key filterable dimensions; second covers return format. Efficiently front-loaded with the most distinctive features (Martingale/Startingale scoring) that distinguish it from generic search tools.

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?

Adequate for a 6-parameter search tool with 100% schema coverage. Compensates for missing output schema by describing return format ('ranked list'). Could be improved by explaining what 'ranked' means or defining Martingale/Startingale for domain clarity, but functionally complete.

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 has 100% description coverage, establishing a baseline of 3. Description maps high-level concepts ('Martingale score', 'Startingale') to specific parameters but does not add syntax, format details, or constraints beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., min/max values, enum options).

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?

Specific verb ('Search and filter') + resource ('instruments') + distinguishing criteria ('Martingale score, Startingale, exchange'). The mention of specialized financial scoring metrics clearly differentiates this from sibling tools like list_top_crypto or market_overview.

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?

Provides implied usage context through specific filter criteria (Martingale/Startingale), indicating this tool is for score-based filtering. However, lacks explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternatives (e.g., contrast with get_instrument for ID lookups or list_top_* for unfiltered rankings).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

While the readOnlyHint annotation confirms this is a safe read operation, the description adds valuable behavioral context by disclosing the return structure (top 5 stocks only) and the specific scoring system used (Martingale Score range 0-5), which helps set accurate expectations for the response payload.

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 consists of two efficient sentences with zero redundancy. The first establishes the general operation (market overview), while the second immediately specifies the scope (top 5) and unique metrics, front-loading the most distinctive information.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description adequately compensates by explaining what data is returned (ranked stocks with specific scores). For a zero-parameter tool with straightforward behavior, this is sufficient, though it could briefly clarify what Martingale Score represents.

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?

With zero parameters in the input schema, the baseline score applies. The description correctly implies no filtering or configuration is needed by focusing entirely on the fixed output behavior (top 5 ranked stocks).

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 clearly states it retrieves a stock market overview and specifies the unique ranking methodology (Martingale Score 0-5) and metrics (Startingale readings) that distinguish this from a generic stock list. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like list_top_stocks or market_overview.

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 description implies usage by specifying the Martingale Score ranking, suggesting this tool is for users seeking that specific technical analysis. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus list_top_stocks or market_overview, and states no prerequisites or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.