Lists distinct symbols available in the local market data lake, filtered by asset class, source, or channel, so you can discover which instruments can be queried or replayed.
Distinct symbols present in the lake inventory. (alias of catalog-symbols)
| 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 behavioral burden, but it discloses very little beyond saying symbols are present in the lake inventory. It does not clarify read-only vs mutation behavior, permissions, pagination, ordering, or return characteristics for an inventory-listing operation.
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 concise and front-loaded, with no filler. However, for a tool with no annotations, incomplete parameter coverage, and no output schema, this level of brevity leaves important structure and context absent rather than merely concise.
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 three parameters, one required enum, no annotations, no output schema, and low schema description coverage, the description is too incomplete. It does not explain the asset_class requirement, the shared source/channel filters, or what the agent should expect from the listing result.
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 adds no meaning about the three parameters, including the required asset_class enum and the optional source/channel filters. With only 33% schema description coverage, the description should compensate for undocumented parameter semantics, especially the shared filter behavior, but it does not.
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 identifies the resource and scope as symbols in the lake inventory, and notes it is an alias of catalog-symbols. However, it does not use a clear verb like 'list' and does not distinguish the tool from several sibling symbol-related tools such as search_symbols, resolve-symbols, universe, or even catalog-symbols when both are present.
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 routing hint is '(alias of catalog-symbols)', which identifies an equivalent tool but gives no guidance on when to use this versus search_symbols, resolve-symbols, universe, or the canonical catalog-symbols name. No exclusions or context for choosing alternatives are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.