freqtrade-mcp

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

Annotations already indicate this is a safe, read-only, idempotent operation (readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: true). The description adds valuable context by specifying what information is returned (full signature details including docstring), which goes beyond the annotations. It does not mention rate limits or authentication needs, but the annotations cover the core safety profile adequately.

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 structured sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence adds value—none are redundant or verbose. It efficiently communicates essential information without waste.

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 value details), the description is complete enough. It clearly states what the tool does, what it returns, and the parameter's role, leaving no critical gaps for agent understanding.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by explaining that 'method_name' is the 'Name of the IStrategy method to inspect'. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it does not provide examples or constraints (e.g., valid method names), 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 ('Get full signature') and resource ('a specific IStrategy method'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'freqtrade_list_strategy_methods' (which lists methods) and 'freqtrade_get_doc' (which might get general documentation). It specifies the exact scope of information returned (parameters, types, defaults, return type, docstring).

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 when detailed method signature information is needed, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'freqtrade_get_doc' or 'freqtrade_list_strategy_methods'. It provides clear context (inspecting IStrategy methods) 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.