Summarizes the channels and on-disk exchanges available in a crypto or equity market data lake, returning each one with its record counts.
Channels and on-disk exchanges present in the lake, with their counts.
| 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 must carry the full behavioral burden, but it only describes the return payload in broad terms. It does not state that this is a read-only operation, whether it has side effects, permission requirements, or any other execution behavior.
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 efficient sentence with no filler. However, its terseness leaves important routing and behavioral information unstated.
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?
In a crowded catalog family with many similarly named siblings and no output schema, the description does not provide enough context to decide when this tool is the right choice. It describes the output superficially but omits differentiation, usage conditions, and behavioral expectations.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the lone asset_class parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond that, which is acceptable when the schema does the heavy lifting, yielding the baseline score.
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 names the returned resources (channels and on-disk exchanges) and says counts are included, but it is a noun phrase rather than a clear verb+resource statement. With siblings like catalog-channels, catalog-exchanges, and catalog-stats present, it does not explicitly distinguish what this summary does that those do not.
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 the closely related catalog, catalog-channels, catalog-exchanges, or catalog-stats tools. The agent must infer usage from the name and minimal description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.