freqtrade-mcp

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

Annotations cover safety (readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent) and scope (closed-world), but the description adds valuable behavioral context: it specifies AND logic for multiple words, returns snippets with surrounding context, mentions error handling if docs are unavailable, and notes the default for max_results. This enhances understanding beyond the annotations without contradictions.

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 bullet points for arguments and returns. Every sentence adds value: the first states the action, the second details search logic, and the parameter/return sections provide necessary specifics without redundancy. It's efficiently structured and appropriately sized.

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, rich annotations (covering safety and idempotency), and the presence of an output schema (handling return values), the description is complete. It explains the search scope, logic, parameters, and error cases, leaving no gaps for the agent to understand how and when to invoke this tool effectively.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: 'query' is described with examples ('custom stoploss', 'backtesting timerange'), and 'max_results' specifies the range (1-50) and default (10). This adds essential meaning not present in the schema, though it could briefly mention the required nature of 'query'.

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 ('Search across all freqtrade documentation') and resource ('all documentation pages'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'freqtrade_get_doc' (which retrieves a specific page) and 'freqtrade_list_docs' (which lists pages without search). It explicitly mentions full-text search with snippet returns, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 (searching documentation with full-text queries) and implies alternatives by mentioning sibling tools like 'freqtrade_get_doc' for specific pages. However, it lacks explicit 'when-not-to-use' guidance, such as distinguishing from 'freqtrade_search_codebase' for code searches versus documentation searches.

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