QuantConnect MCP Server

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

Annotations only provide a title ('Read live chart'), which doesn't convey behavioral traits like read-only status, destructive potential, or authentication needs. The description adds minimal value beyond this, stating it 'Reads' a chart but not disclosing rate limits, error conditions, or what 'live' entails (e.g., real-time data vs. historical). With annotations lacking critical hints, the description fails to compensate adequately for a tool that likely interacts with live systems.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words: 'Read a chart from a live algorithm.' It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information without redundancy or fluff.

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 complexity (interacting with live algorithms and charts) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations covering safety or behavior and a schema lacking parameter descriptions, the description doesn't provide enough context for safe and effective use. It meets a bare minimum by stating the action but leaves critical gaps in understanding how and when to apply it.

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, meaning parameter descriptions are absent in the schema itself. The tool description provides no additional parameter information beyond the tool name, which implies parameters like 'model' but doesn't explain their semantics or relationships. Since the schema lacks descriptions, the description should compensate but doesn't, resulting in a baseline score due to the schema's failure to document 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 'Read a chart from a live algorithm' clearly states the verb ('Read') and resource ('chart from a live algorithm'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'read_backtest_chart' or 'read_live_algorithm', leaving ambiguity about when to use this specific chart-reading tool versus others. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 sibling tools like 'read_backtest_chart' for non-live charts or 'read_live_algorithm' for general live algorithm data, nor does it specify prerequisites such as requiring a live algorithm to be running. Without any usage context or exclusions, the agent must infer when this tool is appropriate.

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