Modify the name or add notes to an existing algorithmic trading backtest for better organization and documentation.
Update the name or note of a backtest.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| model | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| errors | No | List of errors with the API call. | |
| success | No | Indicate if the API request was successful. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide idempotentHint: true. Description states 'update', which is consistent and implies mutation, but adds no further behavioral context (e.g., permissions, side effects, or confirmation of idempotency).
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?
Single sentence, 7 words, with no extraneous information. Every word contributes to the purpose.
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?
Output schema exists (not shown), so return value explanation is unnecessary. However, the description omits prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid projectId and backtestId) and error behavior (e.g., if backtest not found). Adequate for a simple update but lacks completeness.
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 coverage is 0% (top-level 'model' parameter lacks description), but the description clarifies that only 'name' and 'note' can be updated, which adds meaning beyond the nested field descriptions. However, it does not reiterate that projectId and backtestId are required.
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 'Update the name or note of a backtest' uses a specific verb 'Update' and resource 'backtest', clearly distinguishing it from siblings like create_backtest, delete_backtest, read_backtest, and list_backtests.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_backtest or read_backtest, nor any conditions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.