get_cascade_forecast_freeFREE taster: the full-quality liquidation forecast for SOL, no delay and nothing withheld. Use it to check the calibration before paying for coverage of the other ~345 symbols. Free.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | the get_cascade_forecast_free payload | |
| tool | Yes | the tool that produced this payload |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "data": {
+ "additionalProperties": {},
+ "description": "the get_cascade_forecast_free payload",
+ "propertyNames": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "tool": {
+ "const": "get_cascade_forecast_free",
+ "description": "the tool that produced this payload",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "tool",
+ "data"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by explaining the free nature, the scope (SOL only), and the purpose of calibration checking, which goes beyond the structured metadata.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the key facts: 'FREE taster' and 'full-quality liquidation forecast for SOL.' No filler, every word contributes to understanding the tool's scope and purpose.
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?
The description is complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly. It explains what, scope, and why to use it. The output schema exists, so return format details are not required. It fully covers the free vs. paid distinction and the use case.
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?
With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage (empty schema), the description has no need to explain parameters. The baseline for 0-param tools is 4, and the description appropriately omits any param details.
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 it is a free liquidation forecast for SOL, explicitly noting it is the 'full-quality' version with 'no delay and nothing withheld.' It distinguishes itself from the paid sibling get_cascade_forecast by being free and limited to SOL, making its purpose unambiguous.
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 tells when to use: 'Use it to check the calibration before paying for coverage of the other ~345 symbols.' This implies the alternative (get_cascade_forecast) for broader coverage and provides clear context for selection.
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.