Lists distinct symbols available in the Crocodile market-data lake, filtered by asset class and optional source or channel, so users can identify instruments with stored inventory.
Distinct symbols present in the lake inventory.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| source | No | ||
| channel | No | ||
| 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 burden. It only implies a read operation by mentioning 'present in the lake inventory' but discloses nothing about permissions, pagination, return format, or any behavioral constraints. This is a significant gap for a tool with no structured safety hints.
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 short sentence with no wasted words, which is concise and front-loaded. However, brevity here comes at the cost of under-specification rather than efficient communication.
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?
Given 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It should at least clarify that the tool is read-only, what it returns (a list of distinct symbols), and how it differs from similar tools like list_symbols or resolve-symbols.
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 only 33%, so the description should compensate by explaining parameter meaning. It adds nothing beyond the schema. Although the schema itself contains a detailed $defs description for source and channel, the tool description does not help an agent understand how to use the parameters, especially the required asset_class enum.
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 states it returns distinct symbols from the lake inventory, which is slightly more than restating the name. However, it lacks a clear verb+resource construction and does not distinguish it from siblings like list_symbols, search_symbols, resolve-symbols, or universe, leaving ambiguity about its specific role.
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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention conditions, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.