freqtrade-mcp

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds value by specifying the return format ('Enum details including all member names and values') and clarifying the scope ('Returns every member of the enum'), which isn't covered by annotations. It doesn't contradict annotations, as 'Get' aligns with read-only behavior.

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. Each sentence earns its place: the first states the action, the second clarifies the return scope, and the bullet points efficiently document input and output. No wasted words, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 (one parameter), rich annotations (covering safety and idempotency), and the presence of an output schema (implied by 'Has output schema: true'), the description is complete enough. It explains what the tool does, the parameter meaning, and the return content, without needing to detail output structure or behavioral risks already covered by annotations.

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%, but the description compensates by explaining 'enum_path' as a 'Fully-qualified enum path' with an example ('freqtrade.enums.signaltype.SignalDirection'). This adds meaning beyond the schema's basic string type. However, with only one parameter and no schema descriptions, the baseline is 3, as the description provides adequate but not extensive parameter context.

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: 'Get all values of a specific freqtrade enum' with the verb 'Get' and resource 'values of a specific freqtrade enum'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'freqtrade_list_enums' (which likely lists enum names rather than their values) by specifying it returns detailed member information. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'freqtrade_get_class_info' or 'freqtrade_get_method_signature', which might have overlapping purposes.

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 'a specific freqtrade enum' and providing an example path, suggesting it's for retrieving detailed enum metadata. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'freqtrade_list_enums' (for listing enum names) or other 'get_' tools. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage somewhat open to interpretation.

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