freqtrade-mcp

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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior, which the description doesn't repeat. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it specifies the return format ('List of doc topic summaries') and error handling ('error message if docs 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 concise usage guidance, parameter details, and return information. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and the structure is logical and efficient for quick understanding.

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 optional parameter), rich annotations (covering safety and idempotency), and the presence of an output schema (which handles return value details), the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage, parameter semantics, and error cases adequately without needing to explain return values in depth.

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 carries full burden. It effectively explains the single optional parameter 'filter' with its purpose ('narrow results by keyword') and provides an example ('e.g., "strategy", "freqai"'), adding clear meaning beyond the schema's basic type definition. This compensates well for the low coverage.

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 ('List available freqtrade documentation topics') and resource ('documentation pages with their topic identifiers and titles'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'freqtrade_get_doc' (which retrieves specific docs) and 'freqtrade_search_docs' (which searches content), making the purpose explicit and differentiated.

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 usage ('Use the optional filter to narrow results by keyword') and implies when to use it (to get a list of topics). However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like 'freqtrade_search_docs' for content-based searches, which would be helpful for full differentiation.

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