Strata capabilities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent with that (a read-only capability check). The phrase 'currently available' adds a slight dynamic context, but the description does not elaborate on behavior beyond what annotations provide, such as response format or potential caching.

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, clear sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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?

This is a simple capability-discovery tool with no parameters and strong annotations. The description clearly states what it does, and while there is no output schema, the expected result (a list of available features) is reasonably implied. It does not over-explain, making it complete for its simplicity.

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 the schema is trivially complete. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4, and the description adds no unnecessary detail about parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('See') and clearly identifies the resource and scope ('which Strata features are currently available to MCP clients'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like strata_markets and strata_quote, which focus on market data and quotes respectively.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. While the purpose implies discovering capabilities, no explicit context is given.

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