query_historySynonym: signal track record + hourly D1 history (optional asset, hours). Call this when you need past signals and their accuracy.
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": "query_history"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| asset | No | ||
| hours | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful data-scope context, namely hourly D1 history and signal accuracy, but does not discuss return shape, pagination, rate limits, or asset format.
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 short and has little waste, but it is not front-loaded with the action. Starting with "Synonym:" makes the purpose less immediately clear than a direct verb-resource statement would.
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 query tool, it communicates the broad return content and a usage condition. However, with no output schema and 0% parameter description coverage, it remains incomplete about parameter formats and does not help select between this and similarly named history/track-record tools.
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 0%, so the description needs to compensate for both parameters. It only repeats "(optional asset, hours)" and does not explain what asset should contain or that hours is bounded from 1 to 720, leaving the semantics mostly undocumented.
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 identifies the resource clearly as past signals and their accuracy plus hourly D1 history, and the optional asset/hours filter is named. However, the opening word "Synonym:" is awkward and it does not distinguish this tool from siblings such as get_history or get_track_record.
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 states when to call it: "when you need past signals and their accuracy." That is a clear usage condition, though it gives no when-not conditions and does not name alternatives despite obvious sibling overlap.
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.