library_list_familiesList the 17 families of trading concepts with per-family counts and hub links, providing a clear overview for navigating the LuxAlgo Library.
The Library's top-level taxonomy: 17 families of trading concepts (trend, momentum, SMC/ICT, statistics, …) with concept counts and hub links. The natural first call for orientation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.4.0Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does so by stating the tool returns 17 families, includes concept counts and hub links, and serves as a top-level taxonomy. The word 'list' plus the described output makes the read-only nature clear enough for this simple tool.
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 short sentences with no filler. The core information—top-level taxonomy, 17 families, examples, and output content—is front-loaded, and the usage cue is appended efficiently.
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, simple listing tool with no output schema, the description provides enough context: what the result represents, roughly how many items, what each item includes, and when to use it. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.
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, and schema description coverage is 100% by definition. The rubric sets a baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter claims while still explaining what the output contains.
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 names a specific verb and resource: listing concept families, and clearly characterizes them as the Library's top-level taxonomy with 17 items. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like library_list_concepts by emphasizing 'families' as the top-level grouping rather than individual concepts.
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 explicitly says this is 'the natural first call for orientation,' giving clear guidance on when to invoke it. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but for a zero-parameter orientation tool this is sufficient context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.