Tradingale-mcp

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

The annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: it costs '5 units of the monthly quota' and 'Answers in formatted text.' It also clarifies that it takes no arguments and is a fixed snapshot. While it doesn't discuss failure modes or quota limits, it adds cost and format details beyond what annotations convey, making it informative.

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 front-loaded with 'ONE SNAPSHOT OF CRYPTO ONLY, no arguments' and then provides the key details: the top 5 cryptos and score range, usage guidance, cost, and formatting. It is slightly verbose with the phrase 'Use this for a quick picture of crypto alone' but that adds context. Overall, every sentence contributes value without unnecessary fluff.

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 that the tool has zero parameters, a read-only annotation, and no output schema, the description covers all essential information an agent needs to decide whether to call it: purpose, output scope, cost, format, and explicit differentiation from siblings. There are no gaps that would cause an agent to misuse or misselect this tool.

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 is empty, and the description explicitly states 'no arguments,' confirming there are no parameters. Since schema coverage is 100% (no properties), the baseline is 3. The description adds the specific output content (top 5 cryptos by score) but that is not parameter semantics. It adequately clarifies that no arguments are needed, which aligns with the schema.

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 provides 'ONE SNAPSHOT OF CRYPTO ONLY' with 'the top 5 cryptos by Martingale Score (0-5) with their Startingale readings.' It names the specific resource (crypto) and the output scope, and explicitly distinguishes it from siblings by pointing to list_top_crypto and market_overview for other needs. This makes the purpose unambiguous and differentiates it from similar 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?

It explicitly says to use this tool 'for a quick picture of crypto alone' and provides clear alternatives: 'To choose how many or apply a Startingale floor, use list_top_crypto; to cover stocks as well, use market_overview.' This gives direct when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, exceeding minimal expectations.

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?

Beyond readOnlyHint=true, it discloses that responses are formatted text rather than JSON, and that the call costs 1 unit of the monthly quota and is the cheapest call available. These are exactly the operational traits an agent needs before deciding to spend quota or parse output.

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?

Front-loaded with scope and return contents, then routing guidance, then cost. The return-value enumeration is long but justified because no output schema exists, so every clause 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by naming each metric and its scale. Cost, response format, and sibling routing are all covered, leaving nothing an agent needs before invoking it.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema itself fully explains the symbol-vs-name distinction and the optional type disambiguation, including the both-catalogues fallback. The description adds only "a single crypto or US stock" and does not restate the dual-listing behavior, so the schema does the heavy lifting — baseline 3.

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 and resource ("ONE named instrument, in full") and enumerates exactly what it returns: Martingale Score, Startingale reading, breakdown, sequence structure, exchange availability. It is clearly differentiated from search_instruments, which is named explicitly.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ("when you already know the symbol") and when-to-use-the-other ("use search_instruments to find symbols"). It also resolves the practical batching question by saying walking a handful of known symbols one by one is acceptable.

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 only declare readOnlyHint, so the description carries the rest and does add real context: the 3-unit monthly quota cost and that answers come back as formatted text rather than structured data. It does not mention pagination or truncation behavior, but for a capped 1-20 list that is a minor omission.

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?

Front-loaded with what the tool returns, then the routing rules, then cost — a sensible order with no filler. The shouty first clause and the slightly garbled term 'Startingale' cost a point on clarity, but every sentence still carries 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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by saying results are formatted text and ranked by score, plus the quota cost. With only two well-documented optional parameters, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only return-shape details are thin.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already explains the limit range, default 10, sort order, and the 0-5 Startingale scale with its band labels. The description mostly restates the two knobs (how many, optional minimum Startingale) without adding format or edge-case detail, so this sits at the baseline.

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+resource (ranked list of cryptos) plus the axis of ranking (Martingale Score, confirmed by the sibling-facing alternatives). It explicitly separates itself from search_instruments (other filters) and crypto_overview (fixed top 5, no arguments), so an agent can pick it without opening schemas.

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?

Gives both directions: use here when count and minimum Startingale are the ONLY conditions, and use search_instruments for venue, round count, or minimum Martingale Score. It also routes the no-argument top-5 case to crypto_overview, leaving nothing to inference.

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?

readOnlyHint already covers the safety profile, and the description adds genuinely useful context beyond annotations: the output is formatted text and the call costs 3 units of the monthly quota. Ordering (highest Martingale Score first) is also surfaced, though pagination/truncation behavior at the 20-entry cap is not discussed.

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?

Three compact sentences, each carrying a distinct job (what it returns, when to use vs. alternatives, cost). The capitalized opening is slightly awkward but the routing information is front-loaded and waste-free.

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 two-optional-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers selection, cost, ordering, and output format. Minor omission is what happens to scoring ties or whether the formatted text includes the score components, but nothing essential to invoking it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already fully documented including ranges and the 0-5 scoring bands. The description restates 'how many (1-20)' and 'optional minimum Startingale' without adding syntax or edge-case meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 operation: a ranked list of US stocks ordered by Martingale Score, parameterized by count and a minimum threshold. It is clearly distinguishable from crypto/market siblings by name and content, though the odd phrase 'sized by you' adds noise rather than precision.

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?

It gives explicit inclusion criteria ('when those two are the ONLY conditions') and names both the correct alternative (search_instruments) for round counts or minimum Martingale Score and stock_overview for a fixed top 5 with no arguments. No inference is required.

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 already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds substantial behavioral context: it costs 10 units (most expensive), reads both catalogues, returns formatted text, and warns against repetitive calls. This goes well beyond the annotation and fully discloses operational characteristics.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose ('ONE SNAPSHOT OF BOTH MARKETS') and each subsequent sentence serves a distinct function: scope, usage, alternatives, cost, and loop warning. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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 simplicity (no params, no output schema), the description covers everything needed to call it correctly: what it does, when to use it, cost, alternatives, and output format. Nothing essential is missing.

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, and the description explicitly states 'no arguments,' which is the only clarification needed. With 100% schema coverage (empty schema), the description adds the key fact that no input is required, which is helpful for agents.

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 the exact scope: 'ONE SNAPSHOT OF BOTH MARKETS' combining crypto and US stocks, ranked by Martingale Score with Startingale readings. It explicitly names sibling tools (crypto_overview, stock_overview, search_instruments) and explains how they differ, making it impossible to confuse with 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?

It provides explicit when-to-use ('open a conversation' or answer 'how do things look right now') and when-not-to-use guidance, including alternatives for single asset classes and filtered searches, plus a warning against calling in a loop due to cost. This is comprehensive and actionable.

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 only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description adds the quota cost ('Costs 3 units of the monthly quota') and the output form ('Answers in formatted text'), which the agent could not infer otherwise. It also states results are ranked, though it doesn't expand on ordering beyond what the schema's limit description covers.

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?

Front-loaded with a scope statement, then alternatives, then cost — the important routing information comes first. It is dense but slightly repetitive in restating 'Startingale floor' twice in adjacent sentences.

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 6-param read-only search with no output schema, the description covers scope, alternatives, ranking, output format, and quota cost. What remains uncovered (pagination, what a 'formatted text' response actually looks like) is minor for a read tool with a hard limit of 20.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds the practical distinction that exchange/rounds/min_martingale are the discriminating filters and that a Startingale floor alone doesn't justify this tool. That framing helps parameter selection beyond the per-field schema text.

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 and resource ('find instruments matching criteria across an asset class'), plus the return shape ('returns a ranked list'). It is immediately distinguishable from list_top_crypto, list_top_stocks, and the overview siblings by naming them as narrower 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?

Gives an explicit decision rule: use this when a filter other than count or a Startingale floor is needed (exchange, round count, minimum Martingale Score). It then routes the two excluded cases to named siblings — list_top_crypto/list_top_stocks for count+floor, and an overview for no conditions.

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 already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds value by disclosing the cost ('Costs 5 units of the monthly quota') and output format ('Answers in formatted text'). It also states the no-argument constraint. No contradiction with annotations; the only minor gap is not detailing what happens if quota is exceeded, but that is beyond typical scope.

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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the key constraint ('ONE SNAPSHOT OF US STOCKS ONLY, no arguments') and covers purpose, usage guidance, cost, and output format with zero filler. Every clause 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?

For a zero-argument, read-only snapshot tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it states what it returns (top 5 stocks with scores), when to use it, alternatives, cost, and output formatting. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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, the schema already implies no arguments, and the description confirms this explicitly ('no arguments'). Per the rubric, 0 params gives a baseline of 4, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter details, which is appropriate.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: a snapshot of US stocks only, returning the top 5 by Martingale Score with their Startingale readings. It also names sibling tools (list_top_stocks, market_overview) to differentiate scope, making it unambiguous.

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?

It provides clear when-to-use guidance ('quick picture of stocks alone') and explicitly routes to alternatives for other needs: 'To choose how many or apply a Startingale floor, use list_top_stocks; to cover crypto as well, use market_overview.' This leaves no ambiguity.

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