Lists distinct date partitions available for a specified market data channel and asset class (crypto or equity), showing which dates can be queried or replayed.
Distinct date partitions present for one channel.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| channel | Yes | ||
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses almost nothing: not that it is a read-only partition listing, not what an unknown channel yields (the schema, not the description, notes the empty-list ambiguity), not ordering or size of the returned set. Only the trivial fact that results are 'distinct' is conveyed.
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?
A single short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is terse rather than padded; the weakness is under-specification, not verbosity.
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 two-required-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, one fragment of a sentence is not enough: the agent gets no return shape, no empty-result semantics, no mention of asset_class, and no guidance against the near-identical 'list_dates'.
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 description mentions only the channel implicitly ('one channel') and never mentions the required 'asset_class' parameter at all, even though it is mandatory and gates which implementation answers. The schema documents both parameters, but the description actively leaves the agent unaware that a second required argument exists.
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 sentence names a resource (date partitions) and a scope (one channel), but 'catalog-dates' is not clearly distinguished from the sibling 'list_dates' or 'catalog-channels', which read as near-duplicates. An agent cannot tell from the description alone which of these to call.
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 statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist — despite several catalog/list siblings that appear to overlap. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.