QuantConnect MCP Server

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond this, such as pagination, rate limits, or authentication needs. It doesn't contradict annotations, but provides minimal extra value given the annotation coverage.

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 with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given the tool has annotations (readOnlyHint) and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context on usage, parameters, and behavioral details, making it incomplete for optimal agent understanding despite the structured support.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The tool description mentions no parameters at all, failing to compensate for the coverage gap. However, there is only 1 parameter (a nested object with 'projectId' and 'includeStatistics'), and the baseline is 3 when schema coverage is low but the description doesn't add meaningful param details.

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 clearly states the action ('List') and resource ('all the backtests for the project'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'read_backtest' (which likely reads a single backtest) or 'list_optimizations' (which lists a different resource type), missing explicit sibling distinction.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid project ID), exclusions, or compare to similar tools like 'read_backtest' for single backtests or 'list_optimizations' for other listings, leaving usage context unclear.

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