get_signal_stackSynonym: get_brief + get_market in one result (brief, confidence, Kraken prices). Call this when your client expects a "signal stack".
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_signal_stack"
}
}| 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 output schema, the description usefully discloses the return composition (brief, confidence, Kraken prices), which the annotations do not convey. However, it says nothing about the openWorld/Kraken external call behavior, latency, or result format beyond the field list, so the behavioral picture is only partially filled in.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the composition and followed by the usage trigger. No wasted text, though the lead-in 'Synonym:' delays the concrete statement of purpose slightly.
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 composite with no output schema, the description gives enough to invoke it and anticipate the returned fields. It would be more complete with a note on the underlying Kraken network dependency, but overall it is sufficient for correct selection and calling.
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 4 applies. The empty schema simply confirms this is a call-with-no-arguments tool.
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 precisely what the tool composes: get_brief + get_market in a single result, and enumerates the payload (brief, confidence, Kraken prices). This differentiates it from the two sibling tools it aliases, though the 'Synonym:' framing is slightly unusual rather than a clean verb+resource statement of purpose.
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 names the condition for selection: 'Call this when your client expects a "signal stack".' The alternative is implied (calling get_brief and get_market separately), giving an agent a clear routing decision, though there are no when-not-to-use exclusions.
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.