Count per-channel row totals for crypto or equity market data in the local Parquet lake, excluding per-symbol inventory aggregates.
Per-channel row counts, without the per-symbol inventory aggregate.
| 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 exist, so the description carries the full burden; it discloses one behavioral trait — the deliberate omission of the inventory aggregate, implying a cheaper/lighter query than catalog-inventory. It says nothing about read-only semantics, whether the lake must exist on disk, error behavior, or how channels are identified.
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 front-loaded clause with no padding; the scope exclusion is attached immediately to the object it qualifies. It is a fragment rather than a sentence, which is efficient but leaves it terse to the point of omitting setup context.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and a large family of catalog-* siblings (catalog-summary, catalog-channels, catalog-dates, catalog-inventory), the description does not say what a 'channel' is, how the counts are grouped, or which sibling answers an adjacent question. The critical selection detail is left to the tool name.
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 single asset_class enum is already documented with the rationale for being required, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing about how asset_class affects which counts are returned.
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?
States a specific resource and unit of output (per-channel row counts) plus an explicit scope exclusion (no per-symbol inventory aggregate), which implicitly separates it from catalog-inventory. It stops short of naming the sibling tool, so routing still requires inference from the name.
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 'without the per-symbol inventory aggregate' implies the when-not condition (don't use this if you need per-symbol inventory), but no sibling is named and no positive trigger ('use when you only need channel-level volume') is given. Usage is implied, not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.