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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: the call costs 1 quota unit, the response is formatted text rather than JSON, and it returns a single instrument in full. These are concrete operational traits an agent needs to know.

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 four compact sentences with no wasted words. The lead sentence immediately scopes the tool's purpose and return contents, and every subsequent sentence adds distinct value: routing, output format, and cost.

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 full burden of explaining return values, and it does so by listing the exact fields returned. It also covers cost, output format, symbol-vs-name usage, and directs the agent to the correct sibling tool, making the definition complete for a simple lookup 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and both parameters are already well documented: symbol includes examples and case-insensitivity, type explains its default and optimization role. The description adds no new parameter-level detail, so the baseline score 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 states a specific verb and resource: it fetches ONE named instrument in full, and enumerates exactly what is returned (Martingale Score, Startingale reading, breakdown, sequence structure, exchange availability). It is clearly distinguished from search_instruments, which is for finding symbols rather than retrieving a known 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?

Explicitly says when to use it ('when you already know the symbol') and names the alternative for the other case ('use search_instruments to find symbols'). It also adds cost context, telling the agent this is the cheapest call, which directly informs 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?

The annotations provide only readOnlyHint: true, so the description carries most of the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds useful context beyond that: 'Answers in formatted text' describes the return format, and 'Costs 3 units of the monthly quota' warns about an important side effect (quota consumption) that annotations don't cover. It also implies ranked output by saying 'RANKED LIST'. It doesn't describe pagination or error behavior, but for a simple read-only list tool this is substantial added transparency.

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 dense and front-loaded: the first sentence states purpose and parameters, the second gives usage conditions and alternatives, and the last two sentences cover output format and quota cost. Every sentence carries necessary information without repetition or fluff, making it efficient for an agent to parse quickly.

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 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it returns, when to use it vs alternatives, the quota cost, and the response format. The ranking order ('highest Martingale Score first') is documented in the schema's limit parameter, and read-only behavior is in annotations. It could be slightly more explicit about the default behavior (limit=10) but that is available in the schema, so the description is adequately complete for its complexity.

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, so both parameters are fully documented with ranges, defaults, and meaning. The main description only paraphrases the parameters ('choose how many (1-20) and an optional minimum Startingale') and adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides. Per the rubric, the baseline of 3 applies because the description adds minimal value over 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 opens with 'A RANKED LIST OF CRYPTOS, sized by you' which clearly identifies the verb (list) and resource (cryptos), and specifies the two adjustable parameters (count and minimum Startingale). It explicitly differentiates from siblings by stating that anything beyond these two conditions requires search_instruments, and that a fixed top 5 with no arguments is crypto_overview. This fully distinguishes it from the sibling 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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this when those two are the ONLY conditions', and then explicitly names the alternative for additional criteria ('needs search_instruments') and for a simpler variant ('For a fixed top 5 with no arguments, use crypto_overview'). No inference is required on when to pick this tool over its siblings.

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 declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations: 'Answers in formatted text' discloses the output format, and 'Costs 3 units of the monthly quota' discloses quota impact. These add value beyond the structured annotation fields, though the exact output structure is not detailed.

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 three sentences: the first states purpose, the second provides usage routing, and the third discloses output format and cost. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler or redundant words. Every sentence 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 tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers all essential operational aspects: the resource (US stocks), the two accepted conditions, routing to alternatives, output format ('formatted text'), and quota cost. The title and schema provide the ranking criterion and parameter details, so an agent has sufficient information to invoke the tool correctly.

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 `limit` and `min_startingale` fully described in the schema (including defaults, ranges, and meaning). The tool description merely echoes the parameter concepts ('choose how many (1-20) and an optional minimum Startingale') without adding new semantic detail, so the baseline score of 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 opens with 'A RANKED LIST OF US STOCKS' – a specific verb and resource – and immediately states the user-controlled sizing ('choose how many (1-20) and an optional minimum Startingale'). It explicitly differentiates from search_instruments and stock_overview, so an agent can distinguish this tool from its siblings even without inspecting 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?

The description states exactly when to use this tool: 'Use this when those two are the ONLY conditions.' It names the excluded conditions (a round count or a minimum Martingale Score) and directs the agent to search_instruments, and it recommends stock_overview for a fixed top 5 with no arguments. This is explicit when-to-use and 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 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 already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: the tool returns a ranked list, answers in formatted text, and costs 3 quota units. It does not overclaim any side effects.

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 first sentence front-loads purpose and the routing guidance follows immediately; the quota cost is a useful closing note. It is slightly redundant ('find instruments...' then 'filter by...') and 'and more' is vague, but overall tight.

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 six parameters fully documented in the schema, no output schema, and read-only annotations, the description covers the important invocation context: ranked result, formatted text, quota cost, and when not to use it. It stops just short of describing the result items, which would make it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and every parameter has a rich description in the schema, so the tool description is not required to carry parameter detail. It restates the main filter dimensions but adds no syntax or semantics beyond 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?

States a specific verb ('find') and resource ('instruments matching criteria across an asset class'), and immediately distinguishes itself from list_top_crypto/list_top_stocks by naming the filters that require it. An agent can tell what it does and why it differs from siblings.

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?

Explicitly gives the selection rule: use when a filter other than count/Startingale floor is needed, and names the exact alternatives for the simpler cases and the no-condition case. This is model routing 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 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.