freqtrade-mcp

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior, but the description adds valuable context by specifying what information is returned (signature, parameters with types, return type, docstring) and that it's for strategy callbacks. This enhances transparency beyond annotations, though it doesn't mention rate limits or authentication needs.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by clear sections for 'Args' and 'Returns'. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the tool, the second details the output, and the parameter/return sections provide essential usage info without redundancy.

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 the tool's low complexity (1 parameter), rich annotations (covering safety and idempotency), and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is complete enough. It explains the purpose, parameter semantics, and output content, leaving no significant gaps for the agent to operate effectively.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining that 'callback_name' refers to a strategy callback method (e.g., 'bot_start', 'custom_stoploss'), which clarifies the parameter's purpose beyond the schema's generic 'string' type. However, it doesn't provide a full list of valid callbacks or formatting details.

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 specific action ('Get detailed info') and resource ('about a strategy callback method'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'freqtrade_get_method_signature' (general methods) and 'freqtrade_list_strategy_methods' (listing only). It explicitly names example callbacks (e.g., 'bot_start', 'custom_stake_amount'), making the purpose concrete and differentiated.

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 implies usage context by specifying it's for strategy callbacks and listing examples, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'freqtrade_get_method_signature' (which might handle non-callback methods) or 'freqtrade_get_doc' (which might provide broader documentation). It provides clear context but lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.