Retrieve registered exchange connectors for a chosen asset class (crypto or equity) to see which venues this build can collect data from without network access.
Registered source connectors this build can collect from. No lake, no network.
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool does not touch the data lake or network, which is useful behavioral context for a static registry read, but it omits permissions, return shape, and whether the registry reflects installed connectors versus a remote catalog.
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 sentences with the registry description front-loaded. 'No lake, no network' is terse but potentially cryptic, keeping it from a perfect score, yet there is no filler.
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 one-parameter list tool with full schema coverage, the description is close to complete, but the missing sibling differentiation and cryptic 'source connectors' phrasing leave an agent unsure exactly what is returned and how it relates to catalog-exchanges or markets.
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%, so the schema already fully documents the single required asset_class enum. The description adds no parameter-level meaning of its own, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 says it returns 'registered source connectors this build can collect from,' which conveys a static registry of exchanges. However, it never uses the word 'exchanges,' has no verb, and gives no clue how it differs from siblings like catalog-exchanges, list_exchanges_on_disk, or markets.
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 explicit guidance on when to call this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'No lake, no network' hints at a lightweight offline read but does not name any sibling or state when-not-to-use; the filtering advice appears only in the schema description, not here.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.