Returns the current toolkit state: installed MCPs, their connection status, the accounts connected to each one, and how many catalog tools each exposes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context about what the tool reports (connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts), implying it may check live connection state. It does not contradict annotations and goes beyond them by describing the informational content.
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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main action and packs in all relevant output categories without unnecessary words. Every word contributes information.
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 simple read-only overview tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description enumerates exactly what will be returned in a way that is complete for an agent to understand its behavior. No annotations contradict, and the sibling context further clarifies its niche.
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 a baseline score of 4 is appropriate. The description does not need to explain parameters since none exist, and the schema covers this fully.
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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and a specific resource ('current toolkit state') with a detailed list of what that includes: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like authenticate, connect, or market data tools.
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 makes the context clear: use this tool to inspect the overall toolkit state, particularly MCP connections and accounts. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the purpose is evident enough that an agent would know this is the diagnostic overview tool.
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.