freqtrade-mcp

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds value by specifying the return format ('List of method summaries with name, brief description, and callback flag') and the optional filter parameter's purpose, which are not covered by 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 usage guidance, parameter explanation, and return details in a structured format. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 idempotency, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is complete. It adequately explains purpose, usage, parameters, and behavioral context without redundancy.

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 fully compensates by explaining the 'filter' parameter's purpose ('to narrow results by keyword') and providing examples of keywords (e.g., 'entry', 'exit', 'indicator', 'callback', 'custom'). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'all overridable methods from IStrategy', specifying exactly what the tool does. It distinguishes from siblings like freqtrade_get_method_signature (which provides detailed signatures) and freqtrade_list_docs (which lists documentation) by focusing on method summaries with brief descriptions and callback flags.

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 when to use this tool: to list overridable methods with optional filtering. It implies usage for exploring strategy methods but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings, such as freqtrade_get_method_signature for detailed signatures.

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