list_symbolsReturns six Free coins without a key or the supported symbol allowlist with a key, including the applicable delay.
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": "list_symbols"
}
}| 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?
Annotations already establish this is a safe, read-only, closed-world call, so the bar is lower. The description does add real behavior beyond them — the result depends on whether an API key is present (six free coins vs. full allowlist) and a delay applies — but it never explains what the delay is or where it comes from, leaving the most consequential detail undefined.
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?
It is a single compact sentence with no filler, which is good. However, the phrasing is grammatically broken and buries the free-tier condition ahead of the actual resource, so brevity comes at the cost of parseability.
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 must carry the return shape, and it only gestures at it ('six Free coins', 'allowlist', 'delay') without saying what form the symbols take or what the delay is measured in. For a zero-parameter read tool this is the minimum viable level of detail.
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, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. The only wrinkle is that behavior varies by an auth state not represented in the schema, which slightly weakens predictability but is not a parameter gap.
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 verb 'Returns' plus 'the supported symbol allowlist' does identify the resource, and it matches the title. But 'Returns six Free coins without a key' is opaque jargon that an agent can only guess means a limited free-tier symbol set, so the core purpose is only partially recoverable.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no named alternative among the many siblings (prepare_trade, hk_levels, etc.). The key/no-key distinction is mentioned, but since the tool takes zero parameters the agent is given no actionable cue for when to call this versus other lookup tools.
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.