Tradingale-mcp

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds behavioral context by explaining the ranking metric (Martingale Score) and what is shown (Startingale readings), which is useful and not redundant. No contradictions.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action ('Get an overview'), and every word adds value. No fluff or repetition of schema details.

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 simple, parameterless tool, the description adequately explains the return content (top 5 by Martingale Score with Startingale readings). It might benefit from clarifying what Startingale means, but given no output schema and zero complexity, this is near-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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema confirms this with 100% coverage. Since there are no parameters, the description need not explain any, and the baseline of 4 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 clearly states the tool gets an overview of the cryptocurrency market and specifies it shows the top 5 cryptos by Martingale Score with Startingale readings. This specific verb+resource+output distinguishes it from siblings like stock_overview 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?

Usage is implied by the content: it's for crypto market overviews and specifically top 5 by Martingale Score. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this vs list_top_crypto or market_overview, and no exclusions are mentioned.

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 annotation readOnlyHint=true already signals safety. The description adds that it returns 'score breakdown, parameters, and exchange availability', which is useful but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits or error handling. With annotations lowering the bar, this modest addition warrants a 3.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and output. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundancy or filler.

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 simple read-only tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description adequately states what it returns and its scope. Minor gaps like omitting the commodity type and auto-search fallback are covered by the schema, and the readOnlyHint removes safety concerns. It is complete enough for an 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for both parameters. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, simply restating that it targets a specific crypto or stock, which matches the 'symbol' parameter. It does not clarify the 'type' parameter's default or auto-search behavior, but the schema already does.

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 'Gets' a 'Martingale score and detailed analysis' for a 'specific crypto or stock'. This distinguishes it from sibling overview tools (e.g., crypto_overview, stock_overview) by focusing on a single instrument and providing a unique score, though it omits the 'commodity' type from the schema.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is for a specific symbol but does not mention when to prefer overviews, search_instruments, or other siblings, nor any 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?

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read. The description adds behavioral context about ranking by Martingale score and optional filtering by minimum Startingale. No contradictions with annotations.

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 concise sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded and the optional filter stated second. Every word earns its place; no 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?

For a tool with only two optional parameters, the description covers the main functionality and filter. However, it does not mention the limit parameter (though schema covers it) or describe the output shape, which would be useful given no output schema. Overall adequate but not fully 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?

The schema provides full coverage of both parameters with descriptions and defaults (100%), so the description adds no new parameter semantics. The phrase 'Optionally filter by minimum Startingale' merely restates the optional nature already visible in 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 it retrieves top cryptocurrencies ranked by Martingale score. The specific verb 'Get' and resource 'cryptocurrencies' distinguish it from siblings like list_top_stocks. The optional filter adds further clarity about its scope.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as crypto_overview or search_instruments. The description implies usage through its purpose but does not name exclusions or alternative tools.

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 read-only nature is covered. The description adds the concept of Martingale score scoring and optional filtering, but does not disclose ordering, return format, or other behavioral details. It meets the baseline with annotations but adds limited extra context.

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 two concise sentences with the main purpose front-loaded. Every word adds value, and there is no fluff or repetition of schema details.

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 simple list tool with read-only annotations and a fully documented schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains the core functionality and the optional filter, though it does not describe the shape of the returned list. Given the tool's simplicity, this is sufficient.

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 100%, with both parameters (limit and min_startingale) already documented. The description adds a slight clarification that min_startingale is an optional filter, but does not provide additional meaning beyond what the schema already includes. Baseline 3 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 clearly states a specific action ('Get') and resource ('top-rated stocks by Martingale score'), distinguishing it from siblings like list_top_crypto. The optional filter is also mentioned, making the purpose 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?

The description implies the tool is used to retrieve top stocks filtered by Martingale score, which is clear context. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling list and the term 'stocks' sufficiently differentiate it from crypto-related tools.

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 already covering the safety profile, the description adds valuable transparency about the output: the top 5-10 instruments and the ranking metric. This goes beyond the annotation by describing the result set's composition. No further behavioral traits (e.g., pagination) are needed for a simple read-only tool.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately followed by output specifics. Every word earns its place with no filler or repetition.

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 parameterless read-only tool, the description fully explains what it does and what it returns. It covers the scope (crypto and stocks), the ranking metric, and the size of the result set. No output schema is present, but the description itself serves as a sufficient output specification.

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 the description has no parameter details to explain. The schema description coverage is trivially 100%, and the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4. The description does not need to compensate for missing parameter info.

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 a comprehensive market overview across crypto and stocks, with specific output details (top 5-10 instruments ranked by Martingale Score). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like crypto_overview and stock_overview, which likely focus on individual asset classes.

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 a broad cross-asset overview, making it suitable when users need a general market snapshot rather than a specific asset class. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it lacks explicit exclusions but provides clear contextual usage.

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 provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds that a ranked list is returned, which is consistent. However, it does not disclose additional behavioral details such as ranking logic, pagination behavior, or any limitations beyond what the schema already specifies. The read-only hint lowers the bar, but the description adds only minimal context.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action, criteria, and return type. It is concise with no filler or redundant 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?

For a search tool with 6 optional parameters and a well-documented schema, the description covers the core purpose and return type ('ranked list'). However, there is no output schema, and the description does not clarify how ranking works or whether results are limited by default, making it slightly less complete than ideal but still usable.

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 100%, so all parameters are already documented with types, enums, ranges, and defaults. The description repeats some criteria (Martingale, Startingale, exchange) but does not add meaning beyond the schema; baseline of 3 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 uses a specific verb ('Search and filter') and identifies the resource ('instruments') along with key criteria (Martingale score, Startingale, exchange). It also states the output ('ranked list'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like get_instrument (single lookup) or list_top_crypto (predefined lists).

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 as a filtering/search tool but does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives like get_instrument or list_top_*. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use language or named alternatives, so guidance is only contextual.

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 readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a safe read operation, and the description adds useful context about the output: the number of stocks (5), the ranking metric (Martingale Score with 0-5 scale), and the additional Startingale readings. This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it.

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 two sentences long and front-loaded with the primary action. Every clause adds relevant detail, with no redundant or filler content.

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?

The description covers the core aspects: what is returned (top 5 stocks), the ranking metric, and the associated reading. The absence of a time period or market specification is a minor gap, but for a simple zero-parameter overview, it is sufficiently complete, especially with the readOnlyHint annotation.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description adds meaning by explaining what the tool returns, which is the relevant information for a no-parameter tool. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and it is well-served.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('overview of the stock market'), and provides concrete details: top 5 stocks ranked by Martingale Score (0-5) with Startingale readings. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like crypto_overview or list_top_stocks.

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 for obtaining a stock market overview with specific ranking criteria, but it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over alternatives such as list_top_stocks or market_overview. It offers no exclusions or direct comparisons, so guidance is only implicit.

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