Strategies available to copy, with the SAME numbers a human sees, as a DAILY snapshot (UTC: the same object all day): time-weighted return net of fees (immune to the leader's deposits and withdrawals — never a return on capital), max drawdown, Sharpe, trade count and the leader's terms. Read max_drawdown_pct before ranking by return — the best return is often the one that hurt most.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses the daily UTC snapshot semantics ('the same object all day'), that returns are time-weighted and net of fees, that they are immune to deposits/withdrawals, and that they are never a return on capital. What it omits is pagination/result limits and any freshness or rate-limit details beyond 'daily'.
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, front-loaded with the resource and scope, then the metric caveat. The parenthetical definitions are dense but each clause adds real meaning for interpreting the numbers.
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-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies what structured fields cannot: the metric definitions, the snapshot cadence, and the warning about drawdown versus raw return. Nothing an agent needs to call and interpret it 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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline is 4. The description correctly signals that no filtering arguments exist.
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 resource precisely: 'Strategies available to copy', with the returned metrics enumerated. An agent can tell this is the discovery/listing step before follow_leader, though it never names that sibling 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?
It gives interpretation guidance ('Read max_drawdown_pct before ranking by return'), which implies the intended workflow of picking a leader to follow. However, it never says when to use this versus follow_leader or get_copy_status, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated.
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.