freqtrade-mcp

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds useful context beyond this: it specifies that it returns 'full markdown content with title and metadata' and mentions error handling ('or error if not available'), which are not covered by annotations. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 returns, usage guidance, and parameter details in a structured format. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 (single parameter), rich annotations covering safety and behavior, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage, parameters, and error cases adequately without needing to explain outputs.

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 explains the 'topic' parameter's purpose ('Topic name') and provides concrete examples (e.g., 'strategy-callbacks', 'configuration'), adding meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't detail constraints like format or length, leaving some gaps.

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 ('Read a specific freqtrade documentation page') and resource ('documentation page by topic name'), distinguishing it from siblings like freqtrade_list_docs (which lists topics) and freqtrade_search_docs (which searches content). It avoids tautology by explaining functionality beyond the tool name.

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 explicitly provides when to use this tool ('Read a specific freqtrade documentation page') and when not to ('Use freqtrade_list_docs to discover available topic names'), offering clear alternatives and prerequisites. It guides the agent to first use the sibling tool for topic discovery.

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