freqtrade-mcp

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

Annotations indicate this is a read-only, non-destructive, idempotent operation with a closed world, which the description doesn't contradict. The description adds value by specifying what version information is included (freqtrade-mcp server, freqtrade, Python), which isn't covered by annotations. However, it lacks details on potential errors, response format beyond 'dictionary', or performance considerations, leaving room for improvement.

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 in the first sentence, followed by details on what's included in the return. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, though the 'Returns:' section slightly repeats information from the prior sentence. Overall, it's efficiently structured and appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, annotations covering safety, and an output schema implied by 'Returns:'), the description is mostly complete. It specifies the types of version info returned, which complements the structured data. However, it could be more explicit about the output format or error cases, slightly reducing completeness for a tool that might be used in diagnostic contexts.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, but it correctly avoids mentioning any parameters, aligning with the schema. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since no parameters exist, and the description doesn't mislead about inputs.

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 returns version information for freqtrade and the MCP server, with specific mention of freqtrade-mcp server version, installed freqtrade version, and Python version. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on version info rather than configuration, documentation, or codebase queries. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with specific sibling tools like freqtrade_get_callback_info or freqtrade_get_class_info, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention scenarios like checking compatibility, troubleshooting, or verifying installations, nor does it reference sibling tools that might serve related purposes. Without any usage context or exclusions, the agent must infer based on the tool name alone.

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