Configure default market types (spot, future, swap, option, margin) for all exchanges with immediate cache clearing for instant application on the PCM MCP server.
Set default market type for all exchanges
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| clearCache | No | Clear exchange cache to apply changes immediately | |
| marketType | Yes | Market type to set |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like whether this is a global configuration change, permission requirements, rate limits, or what happens to existing market data. The 'clearCache' parameter hints at some behavior but isn't explained in the description.
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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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 this is a configuration mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It should explain the scope of changes (e.g., affects all exchanges globally), potential side effects, or what confirmation/error responses look like, but provides none of this context.
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 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3 for adequate but not enhanced coverage.
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 clearly states the action ('Set') and the target ('default market type for all exchanges'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-market-types' or 'set-leverage', which would be needed for a perfect score.
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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, side effects, or compare it to related tools like 'set-leverage' or 'set-margin-mode', leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.