List per-symbol coverage across exchange, channel, timestamps, and row counts to verify which market data is present before querying or replaying.
Per-symbol coverage rows: exchange, channel, symbol, timestamps, row count. (alias of catalog-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 partially discharges this by disclosing the returned row columns, which substitutes for the missing output schema, and by identifying itself as an alias (so behavior matches catalog-inventory). It says nothing about read-only safety, whether it scans the whole lake, latency, or pagination.
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?
Two short fragments with no filler; the row-field list is front-loaded and the alias tag follows immediately. It is arguably under-specified rather than merely concise, but nothing is wasted.
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 3-parameter catalog tool with no annotations and no output schema, describing the returned columns is the most valuable thing the description could do, and it does that. However, it omits the required asset_class parameter and any usage context, leaving gaps an agent must resolve by opening the schema.
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% and the tool description adds no parameter information at all — it never mentions the required asset_class enum (crypto/equity) or the source/channel filters. The $defs block does explain source and channel at length, but that lives in the schema, not the description, and the critical required-parameter constraint is unaddressed here.
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 exact output shape (exchange, channel, symbol, timestamps, row count) and states the resource is a per-symbol coverage inventory. The '(alias of catalog-inventory)' tag is a strong differentiator against the many catalog-* siblings, though the description never uses a verb (list/get/return), so it describes content rather than action.
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 alias note implies the tool is interchangeable with catalog-inventory, which is useful routing information, but it never explicitly says 'identical results, use either' or names a condition that would select one over the other. There is also no guidance on when this is preferable to catalog-symbols, catalog-summary, or data-coverage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.