freqtrade-mcp

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

Annotations already declare this as a read-only, non-destructive, idempotent operation. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by specifying the organizational structure ('organized by section') and the filtering capability. It doesn't contradict annotations and provides useful behavioral information about the output format.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement, usage guidance, and parameter documentation in just a few sentences. Every sentence adds value with no redundant information, and it's appropriately front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 has comprehensive annotations, an output schema, and only one optional parameter, the description provides complete context. It explains what the tool returns, how to use the parameter, and the organizational approach, making it fully adequate for this configuration schema tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining the single parameter's purpose ('to filter by a specific config area'), providing examples ('exchange', 'pairlist', 'stoploss'), and clarifying it's optional. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Return', 'Lists') and resource ('freqtrade configuration keys and their descriptions'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on configuration schema rather than callbacks, classes, dataframes, documentation, enums, methods, or version info.

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 clear context for when to use the tool ('to filter by a specific config area') and mentions the optional section parameter. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternative tools for different needs among the siblings.

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