freqtrade-mcp

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

Annotations provide read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent hints, which the description does not contradict. The description adds valuable context by specifying the scope ('any freqtrade class') and the types of information returned (docstring, MRO, methods, attributes), which goes beyond the annotations to clarify the tool's behavior and output structure.

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 purpose, followed by returns and parameter details in a structured format. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.

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 (read-only, idempotent), and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It adequately explains what the tool does, the parameter meaning, and the return content, without needing to detail output values explicitly.

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 clearly explains the 'class_path' parameter as a 'fully-qualified class path' with an example ('freqtrade.strategy.interface.IStrategy'), adding essential semantics that the schema lacks. This effectively documents the single parameter, though it could provide more on format constraints.

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 ('Inspect any freqtrade class') and details what information is returned (docstring, MRO, public methods, class-level attributes). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'freqtrade_get_doc' or 'freqtrade_get_method_signature' by focusing on comprehensive class introspection rather than documentation or specific method details.

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 by specifying it inspects 'any freqtrade class' with a fully-qualified path, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'freqtrade_get_doc' for documentation or 'freqtrade_list_strategy_methods' for method listings. The context is clear but lacks explicit guidance on exclusions or comparisons.

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