Shows the trading setups and thesis keywords Second Opinion can evaluate. Use this to see which strategy categories and rationale terms are supported before submitting a trade for review.
The setup taxonomy Second Opinion can test, and the thesis words that map to each.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the call is read-only, whether it has side effects, what response shape to expect, or any other runtime behavior. The description only characterizes content, not behavior.
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 short sentence with no filler words. It front-loads the core concept of the setup taxonomy, though it would be clearer if it began with an action verb.
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 parameterless listing tool with no output schema, the description conveys the main content of the result. However, it lacks any usage context, behavioral guarantees, or relationship to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer when and why to call it.
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 adds useful context about what the returned data represents, which is more than the empty input schema provides.
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 identifies the resource (the setup taxonomy and thesis-word mappings) but uses a noun phrase rather than an action verb like 'lists' or 'returns.' It is not a tautology and gives more specific content than the name alone, but the agent must infer the action from 'list_setups'.
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?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool instead of base_rates, cost_estimate, audit_log, or second_opinion. The mention of 'Second Opinion' hints at a relationship to a sibling tool, but no explicit condition, alternative, or exclusion is stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.