List every channel in the local Parquet lake with its row count for crypto or US equities to verify data coverage before querying or replaying.
Every channel in the lake with its row count.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| asset_class | Yes | Which market answers. Required: this tool has an implementation for each of these and no symbol parameter to infer one from. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It indicates the return content, but does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it scans the whole lake, performance implications, or how row counts are computed.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to stating the tool's output.
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?
For a simple one-parameter catalog tool, the description names the returned content (channels and row counts). However, with no annotations or output schema, it should say more about read-only behavior, scope, and result shape to be fully complete.
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 single parameter, asset_class, has 100% schema description coverage and an enum, so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, which is the baseline expectation when coverage is high.
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 resource (every channel in the lake) and the included metric (row count). However, it does not differentiate this tool from closely named siblings such as catalog-channels, catalog-stats, or list_data_channels.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions. The description only states what it returns, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.