Returns connection status and URLs. When all providers are connected, returns authenticated:true and empty pending[]. When credentials are missing, returns connect_url for the toolkit and per-install URLs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark it as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral detail by explaining the authenticated/pending fields and the connect_url scenario for missing credentials, which goes beyond the structured annotations.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence contributes conditional detail without waste. It is highly concise and well-structured.
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 carries the burden of explaining return values. It clearly covers the fully-connected and missing-credentials cases, but does not explicitly describe partial-connection states or the structure of pending[]. That minor gap warrants a 4 rather than 5.
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 the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the empty schema provides complete coverage, so this score 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 clearly states the tool returns connection status and URLs, with specific conditional outcomes (authenticated:true when all connected, connect_url when credentials missing). This is a specific verb-resource pairing that distinguishes it from siblings like authenticate and marketplace.
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 description provides clear context on what the tool does and when its different outputs appear, implying usage for checking connection state. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like authenticate for when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: authenticate and connect are separate (login vs status), the mercado_* tools each target a specific asset class or function (crypto, currency, listing, macro, quote, ticker search), and platform tools like marketplace, report_bug, show_version, and toolkit_info are unambiguous. There is no meaningful overlap that would cause an agent to select the wrong tool.
The naming is mixed: financial tools consistently use the 'mercado_' prefix, but platform tools use a variety of conventions—single words (authenticate, connect, marketplace), verb_noun with underscores (report_bug, show_version), and nouns (toolkit_info). While readable, this inconsistency is noticeable and not as uniform as a strong verb_noun pattern.
At 12 tools, the count is within a reasonable range, but roughly half of the tools are platform-management concerns (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info) rather than financial data. This makes the set feel heavier and less focused than a pure market-data server, though it's not excessive.
The financial data tools cover a broad range: quotes, screening, crypto, exchange rates, macro indicators, and ticker discovery—sufficient for a Brazilian market data server. Some potential gaps like news or portfolio management are out of scope, and the platform tools add extra utility, leaving no critical missing operations for the core purpose.