One strategy in full: what its rule does, the parameters you can tune with their ranges and defaults, every asset it can hold, and its benchmark. Use the parameter keys with backtest_strategy.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Strategy id, as list_strategies returns it. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does describe the returned data shape in useful detail, but it does not state that the operation is read-only, nor does it mention authentication, rate limits, or error behavior for a simple getter.
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 tightly written sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, followed by a usage note. Every phrase adds value and there is no 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 single-parameter getter with no output schema, the description adequately covers the return fields (rule, parameters, assets, benchmark) and points to downstream use. It would be slightly stronger with an explicit read-only declaration, but no critical information 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?
There is only one parameter (id) and the schema fully documents it (100% coverage). The description adds no extra meaning for the id argument, and its remark about parameter keys refers to the strategy's tunable parameters, not to this tool's input. 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 states a specific verb and resource: retrieves one strategy in full. It enumerates the returned content (rule, tunable parameters with ranges/defaults, assets, benchmark), clearly distinguishing it from sibling list_strategies. It also names backtest_strategy as a downstream consumer.
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 the returned parameter keys with backtest_strategy, giving a clear use case. However, it does not directly compare this tool with alternatives like list_strategies or strategy_schema for other purposes, leaving some routing inference to the agent.
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.