freqtrade-mcp

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

Annotations already indicate this is a read-only, non-destructive, idempotent operation with a closed world. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it specifies the scope ('all trading-related enums from freqtrade'), the return format ('enum summaries' with details like module paths and docstrings), and the optional filtering capability. This enhances understanding without contradicting annotations.

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 details on returns, usage, arguments, and return value. Every sentence adds value: the first states what it does, the second specifies return details, the third provides usage guidance, and the last two clarify parameters and returns. No wasted words.

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 optional parameter), rich annotations (covering safety and behavior), and the presence of an output schema (which handles return value documentation), the description is complete. It adequately explains the tool's purpose, usage, and parameter semantics without needing to detail return values or behavioral traits already covered elsewhere.

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 1 parameter with 0% description coverage. The description compensates by explaining the parameter's purpose: 'Optional keyword filter for enum names or descriptions.' It clarifies that the filter is optional and what it filters on, adding meaningful semantics beyond the schema's basic type information.

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 all trading-related enums from freqtrade') and resource ('trading-related enums'), distinguishing it from siblings like freqtrade_get_enum_values (which likely returns values of a specific enum) and freqtrade_list_docs (which lists documentation). It explicitly mentions what information is returned: 'enum names, their module paths, docstrings, and member counts.'

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.' However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like freqtrade_get_enum_values or freqtrade_search_codebase, nor does it specify any exclusions or prerequisites for usage.

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