mcp

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful context about what specific data is returned (top 5 cryptos, Martingale Score ranking, Startingale readings), which goes beyond the basic safety information provided by annotations. However, it doesn't disclose other behavioral aspects like rate limits, data freshness, or error conditions.

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 perfectly concise - a single sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and output format. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information or unnecessary elaboration. The structure is front-loaded with the core purpose followed by specific output details.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description provides adequate information about what data is returned. However, it doesn't explain the Martingale Score or Startingale readings concepts, which might be unfamiliar to the agent. The lack of output schema means the description carries more burden, but it doesn't fully specify the return format structure.

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 with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description appropriately doesn't waste space discussing parameters that don't exist. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools where the description focuses on what the tool does rather than parameter semantics.

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's purpose: 'Get an overview of the cryptocurrency market' with specific details about what it shows (top 5 cryptos ranked by Martingale Score with Startingale readings). It distinguishes itself from generic overview tools by specifying cryptocurrency focus and unique ranking metrics, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'market_overview' or 'stock_overview'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'market_overview', 'stock_overview', and 'list_top_crypto' available, there's no indication of when this specific cryptocurrency overview with Martingale Score ranking is preferred over other market data tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation, and the description adds valuable context beyond this by specifying the return content ('score breakdown, parameters, and exchange availability') and hinting at fallback behavior ('searches other types automatically' from the schema). It does not contradict annotations, as 'Get' aligns with read-only.

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 front-loaded and concise, consisting of two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and return values without unnecessary details, making it easy for an AI agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity, annotations cover safety, and schema covers parameters well, the description is mostly complete. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from more detail on return structure or error handling, but it adequately explains what the tool does and returns.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the two parameters. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining parameter interactions or usage nuances, but it doesn't need to compensate for gaps, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Martingale score and detailed analysis for a specific crypto, stock, or commodity'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'crypto_overview' or 'list_top_crypto' that focus on lists or overviews rather than detailed analysis of a single instrument.

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 implies usage by specifying it's for 'a specific crypto, stock, or commodity' and mentions 'exchange availability,' but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_instruments' or 'stock_overview,' nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, which the description aligns with by implying a read operation ('Get'). The description adds context about filtering by 'Startingale', but doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'Martingale score' entails. With annotations covering safety, this is adequate but not rich.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes the optional filter. There's no wasted text, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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?

Given the tool has annotations (readOnlyHint) and high schema coverage, the description is minimally complete. However, it lacks output details (no output schema) and doesn't explain key terms like 'Martingale score' or 'Startingale', which could hinder agent understanding in a complex context.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description mentions 'Optionally filter by minimum Startingale', which loosely maps to 'min_startingale' but doesn't add meaningful semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the burden.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('top-rated cryptocurrencies by Martingale score'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'crypto_overview' or 'search_instruments', which might offer similar functionality with different scopes or filters.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'crypto_overview' or 'search_instruments'. It mentions an optional filter but doesn't explain scenarios where this tool is preferred over others, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating this is a safe read operation. The description adds context about the ranking criterion ('Martingale score') and optional filtering, which is useful beyond annotations. However, it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, pagination, or response format, leaving some gaps. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 concise and front-loaded, with two sentences that efficiently convey the core purpose and optional feature. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy or fluff, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, read-only, no output schema), the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers the purpose and filtering but lacks details on output format, ranking specifics, or usage context relative to siblings. With annotations covering safety, it's minimally viable but not fully complete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters (limit and min_startingale). The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'Optionally filter by minimum Startingale', which loosely maps to min_startingale but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose: 'Get the top-rated stocks by Martingale score.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('top-rated stocks'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'list_top_crypto' by focusing on stocks. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'stock_overview' or 'search_instruments', which might also involve stocks, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions optional filtering by 'minimum Startingale', but doesn't specify when to use this over siblings like 'search_instruments' or 'stock_overview' for stock-related queries. There's no explicit when/when-not or alternative recommendations.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds value by specifying the output format ('top 5-10 instruments ranked by Martingale Score (0-5), with their Startingale readings'), which provides useful context beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits like rate limits, error handling, or data freshness, which could be relevant for an agent.

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 efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, scope, and output format without any wasted words. It is front-loaded with the main action ('Get a comprehensive overview') and provides all necessary details concisely.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (providing a cross-asset market overview) and the absence of an output schema, the description does a good job explaining what the tool returns. However, it could be more complete by specifying data sources, update frequency, or limitations, which would help an agent better understand the tool's reliability and context.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description does not add parameter-specific information, but this is acceptable given the baseline for zero parameters is 4, as it compensates by clearly stating the tool's scope and output without redundancy.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('Get a comprehensive overview') and resources ('current market conditions across crypto and stocks'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying unique content ('top 5-10 instruments ranked by Martingale Score (0-5), with their Startingale readings'). This differentiates it from tools like 'crypto_overview' or 'stock_overview' that likely focus on single asset classes.

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 implies usage context by specifying the tool provides a 'comprehensive overview' across multiple asset classes, suggesting it should be used for broad market analysis rather than targeted queries. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'crypto_overview' or 'stock_overview', nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites, leaving some ambiguity.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds value by specifying that it 'returns a ranked list of matching instruments,' which provides behavioral context not covered by annotations (e.g., ranking behavior). However, it lacks details on pagination, rate limits, or error conditions, leaving gaps in behavioral understanding.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and key criteria, with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a search tool with clear parameters, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (6 parameters, no output schema) and annotations covering safety, the description is adequate but has gaps. It explains the purpose and return type but lacks usage guidelines, error handling, or output format details. With no output schema, more detail on the 'ranked list' structure would be beneficial for completeness.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with all parameters well-documented in the schema (e.g., defaults, ranges, enums). The description mentions filtering by 'Martingale score, Startingale, exchange, and other criteria,' which aligns with parameters but doesn't add meaningful semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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's purpose: 'Search and filter instruments by Martingale score, Startingale, exchange, and other criteria.' It specifies the verb (search/filter) and resource (instruments) with key filtering criteria. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_top_crypto' or 'get_instrument' beyond mentioning 'search and filter' versus 'list' or 'get' operations.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'list_top_crypto' or 'get_instrument' for specific use cases, nor does it indicate prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful behavioral context about what data is returned (top 5 stocks, Martingale Score ranking, Startingale readings), but doesn't mention any limitations like data freshness, rate limits, or whether this is real-time or delayed data. With annotations covering the safety profile, this earns a baseline 3 for adding some behavioral context.

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 efficiently structured in a single sentence that communicates the core functionality. It's appropriately sized for a simple read-only tool with no parameters. Every element of the description serves a purpose, though it could potentially be more front-loaded with the most critical 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 read-only tool with no parameters and good annotations, the description provides adequate context about what data is returned. However, without an output schema, the description doesn't fully explain the return format structure or data types. It mentions Martingale Score and Startingale readings but doesn't define what these metrics mean or their value ranges beyond the Martingale Score's 0-5 range.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description appropriately doesn't mention parameters since none exist. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools where the schema coverage is complete.

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's purpose: 'Get an overview of the stock market' with specific details about what it returns (top 5 stocks ranked by Martingale Score with Startingale readings). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'market_overview' by focusing specifically on stocks, but doesn't explicitly contrast with 'list_top_stocks' which appears to be a similar sibling tool.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are several sibling tools that appear related (market_overview, list_top_stocks, get_instrument), but the description doesn't indicate when this specific tool is preferred or what makes it different from those alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.