freqtrade-mcp

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

Annotations cover read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and closed-world behavior. The description adds valuable context: it specifies what types of symbols are searched (classes, functions, constants, enums), supports basic regex patterns, and describes the return format (list with module paths and kinds). This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 details on search scope, regex support, and structured Args/Returns sections. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-organized.

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 moderate complexity (1 parameter, regex support), rich annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, parameter meaning, behavioral details, and return format, providing sufficient context for an agent to use it correctly.

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 must compensate. It explains the 'query' parameter as a search pattern for symbol names that supports basic regex, including allowed characters and operators. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema, though it could detail regex syntax more.

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 searches for symbols in the freqtrade codebase by name pattern, specifying the resource (symbols in codebase) and verb (search). It distinguishes from siblings like freqtrade_search_docs (which searches documentation) and freqtrade_list_* tools (which list rather than pattern-match).

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 for finding code symbols by pattern, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like freqtrade_search_docs or freqtrade_list_* tools. It provides clear context (searching codebase symbols) but lacks explicit exclusions or comparison to siblings.

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