Retrieve the distinct date partitions available for a specified channel and asset class, so you can see which dates exist before querying or replaying market data.
Distinct date partitions present for one channel. (alias of catalog-dates)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| channel | Yes | ||
| 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 behavioral burden, but it only says what data is returned. It does not mention that both parameters are required, that channel is intentionally not defaulted, the behavior for genuinely empty channels, or any output or pagination characteristics.
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 two short sentences and front-loads the resource scope before the alias note. There is no repetition or irrelevant detail.
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 tool with two required parameters, an enum, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits the asset_class parameter entirely and does not compensate for the partial schema description coverage.
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?
The description mentions 'one channel' but never mentions the required asset_class parameter or its crypto/equity enum. With only 50% schema description coverage and no behavioral details about valid channel names, the description leaves the agent dependent on the schema to discover a required parameter.
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 a specific resource, 'distinct date partitions present for one channel,' and explicitly identifies itself as an alias of catalog-dates. This lets an agent distinguish it from unrelated siblings, though the verb is implied rather than stated and the alias relationship to catalog-dates is the main differentiator.
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 only usage signal is '(alias of catalog-dates),' which implies this tool is interchangeable with catalog-dates. It does not say when to choose one over the other, what prerequisites exist, or what happens if the channel is invalid or empty.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.