List the channel names available in a market data lake for crypto or equity, so you can discover valid channels before querying or replaying data.
Channel names present in the lake.
| 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 disclosure burden and does almost none of it — no statement of read-only safety, cost/scan behavior, or whether the result reflects the on-disk lake or a live feed. The single phrase 'present in the lake' weakly implies a presence filter, which is the only behavioral signal offered.
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?
It is brief, but brevity here is under-specification rather than efficiency: a single noun phrase with no leading verb and no front-loaded scope. Nothing is wasted because almost nothing is said.
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?
A single-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema needs the description to say what the return looks like (list of strings? sorted?) and what 'channel' means in this domain. Neither is covered, so an agent knows the topic but not the contract.
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 schema fully documents the sole required parameter asset_class with an enum and explicit rationale, so schema coverage is 100% and the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds nothing about the parameter, including nothing about how asset_class changes the answer.
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 fragment 'Channel names present in the lake' names the resource but supplies no verb and no scope, so an agent must infer that this returns a list. It does not distinguish the tool from near-duplicate siblings such as catalog-exchanges, catalog-symbols, 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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative named anywhere in the description. With siblings like list_data_channels and catalog covering adjacent ground, an agent has zero basis for choosing between them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.