Launch Engine

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

validate_check

Read-only

Validate your market by reviewing key metrics with a daily 60-second health check. Monitor performance during the validation window to make data-driven decisions.

Instructions

Daily 60-Second Health Check — quick metrics review during validation window.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "market_name": "<market_name>"
    },
    "name": "validate_check"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`market_name`	Yes	The market/pipeline slug

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.2.0Jul 5, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint true and destructiveHint false, covering safety. The description adds timing context (daily, 60-second, validation window) but no further behavioral traits like permissions or side effects.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Single sentence, front-loaded, with no unnecessary words. Efficiently communicates core purpose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given low complexity (1 param, no output schema, annotations present), the description is minimally adequate. It lacks explanation of 'validation window' and what metrics are reviewed, but is not severely incomplete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'market_name'. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states it's a 'Daily 60-Second Health Check — quick metrics review during validation window,' indicating a read-only metrics review. However, it does not distinguish from sibling check tools like 'daily_check' or 'rapid_check'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. Given many sibling check tools, explicit conditions for use are missing.

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