QuantConnect MCP Server

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this—it specifies 'results' but doesn't detail what those results include (e.g., performance metrics, logs) or any constraints (e.g., authentication needs, rate limits). Since annotations cover the safety aspect, the description gets a baseline score but lacks enrichment.

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, direct sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's purpose 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (reading specific backtest results), the description is minimal but functional. Annotations cover read-only safety, and an output schema exists (implied by context signals), so the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, it lacks details on result scope or error conditions, leaving gaps for the agent.

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% description coverage (no parameter descriptions in the schema itself), but the description provides no parameter information. However, the schema defines a nested object with 'projectId' and 'backtestId', which are self-explanatory to some degree. The description doesn't add meaning beyond the schema's structure, but since the schema is clear, it meets the baseline.

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 'Read the results of a backtest' clearly states the verb ('Read') and resource ('results of a backtest'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_backtests' (which lists multiple) and 'read_backtest_chart' (which reads specific chart data). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all similar siblings (e.g., 'read_backtest_insights', 'read_backtest_orders'), so it's not a perfect 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a backtest ID), contrast with siblings like 'list_backtests' for discovery, or specify use cases (e.g., retrieving summary results vs. detailed data). Without any usage context, the agent must infer from tool names alone.

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