Read actual completed Kraken OHLC market observations, timestamped and linked to their public source. No forecast or trade.
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": "market_snapshot"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | No | BTC |
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 destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond them by disclosing provenance — results are completed, timestamped observations linked to their public source — which tells the agent what kind of data it gets and that it is verifiable.
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 tight sentences with the data description front-loaded and the scope constraint second. No filler, no repetition of the tool name.
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 should carry more of the return shape, and it does partly (timestamped, source-linked). However, it never states the OHLC interval, time range, or how many observations come back — meaningful gaps for a market-data snapshot tool.
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 one optional parameter (symbol) with 0% schema description coverage, though the enum and BTC default make its meaning largely self-evident. The description adds no information about symbol selection or what the default implies, so it neither helps nor harms.
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?
Names a specific verb ('Read') and a specific resource ('completed Kraken OHLC market observations'), and the closing 'No forecast or trade' separates it from the prediction-market and trading siblings. It stops short of naming an alternative directly, but the scope is unmistakable.
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?
The phrase 'No forecast or trade' gives an implicit exclusion, and 'actual completed' implies historical rather than predictive data. There is no explicit when-to-use statement or named alternative for forecasting needs, so guidance is only implied.
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.