Enumerate or volume-rank all tradable instruments from one crypto or US equity venue, filtering by asset class, quote, kind, and limit to retrieve the venue’s instrument set.
Enumerate or volume-rank one venue's whole tradable instrument set.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| top | No | ||
| kinds | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| quote | No | ||
| source | 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 exist, so the description carries the full burden and delivers almost nothing behavioral. It doesn't say whether this hits the network, whether results are cached or paginated, how large the returned set can be, or what permissions are needed. Only the scope ('whole set for one venue') is disclosed.
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?
A single well-formed sentence with no filler and the scope front-loaded. It is efficient, though arguably too terse given six parameters and almost no schema documentation.
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 6 parameters, 2 required, 17% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, one sentence is far from enough. Ordering, result shape, and the interaction between `top`, `limit`, and `kinds` are all left unaddressed.
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 17% across 6 parameters, so the description needed to compensate and largely doesn't. 'Volume-rank' weakly maps to the undocumented `top`, and 'one venue' maps to `source`, but `kinds`, `limit`, and `quote` are unexplained in both places.
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?
Specific verb pair ('Enumerate or volume-rank') plus a precise resource and scope ('one venue's whole tradable instrument set') tells an agent exactly what comes back. It stops short of differentiating from near-siblings like list_symbols, catalog-symbols, or search_symbols, so an agent still has to guess which of those to pick.
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?
No when-to-use or when-not guidance and no alternative is named. The 'one venue' phrasing implies it isn't a cross-venue tool, but that constraint is inferred rather than stated, and nothing explains when to enumerate versus volume-rank.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.