Retrieve all available parameters for configuring market scanners.
Get available scanner parameters.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_scanner_parameters"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states a read operation. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, or the nature of the output (e.g., list format).
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 concise sentence with no waste. However, it could be slightly expanded to include context (e.g., 'for use with run_scanner') without sacrificing brevity.
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?
Despite no parameters and no output schema, the description lacks contextual completeness. It does not explain what scanner parameters are, how they are used, or their relationship to sibling tools like 'run_scanner' and 'qualify_contracts'.
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 input schema has 0 parameters and 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. The description does not need to add param info but hints at output (available parameters). No additional semantic value is provided.
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 'Get available scanner parameters' clearly states the verb (Get) and resource (scanner parameters). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'run_scanner' implicitly, but does not explicitly differentiate or mention the relationship.
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?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'run_scanner' or how the parameters relate to other scanner functions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.