Retrieve a list of your trading bots with their current status and performance metrics.
List all your trading bots with status and performance.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "list_bots"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description implies a read-only listing operation but does not disclose authentication requirements, pagination behavior, or how performance is computed. The term 'list' suggests no side effects, but more detail is needed for full transparency.
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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and key details, making it easy to scan.
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 simple tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but could be improved by specifying what 'status' and 'performance' entail (e.g., returned fields). Given the low complexity, it meets minimum viability.
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?
There are zero parameters in the schema, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds no additional parameter info, which is acceptable since there are none. A score of 3 reflects the baseline for high 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 (list), the resource (trading bots), and the scope (all your bots including status and performance). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like get_bot_status which target a single bot.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_bot_status or get_performance_metrics. The description does not specify any context, exclusions, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.