Lists the exchange partitions present on disk for a chosen asset class, distinguishing stored market data from registered connectors.
Exchange partitions present on disk, as opposed to registered connectors.
| 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 data reflects on-disk partitions rather than registered connectors, but does not disclose read-only behavior, permissions, return shape, pagination, or any other operational details.
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 wasted words. It immediately conveys the core distinction the agent needs.
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 listing, the description explains the tool's scope but not what the returned "partitions" contain. With no output schema and no annotations, it should say more about the result shape or whether it returns names, paths, or metadata.
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 100%, and the only parameter, asset_class, is fully documented in the schema with an enum and explanation. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage baseline.
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 identifies a specific resource — exchange partitions on disk — and distinguishes it from registered connectors. It lacks an explicit verb like "list" and does not name the exact sibling tool, so it falls short of a 5.
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 phrase "as opposed to registered connectors" implies when this tool is appropriate, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. Usage is inferable rather than clearly instructed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.