Fetch a specific Agentberg skill pack by name. Critical skills (regime, risk_calendar, health) are automatically bundled in get_skills. Optional skills: 'rotation' for sector money-flow analysis, 'narrative' for macro headline synthesis.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Skill to fetch. 'core' returns the full critical bundle. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, but description clearly states it's a fetch operation (read-only). Does not discuss side effects or return format, but given simplicity, it's acceptable.
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?
Three sentences: purpose, sibling context, optional skills. No redundancy. Front-loaded with main action.
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?
Adequate for a simple fetch tool with one parameter. Could mention if skill pack is returned as a full object or just metadata, but not necessary for basic use.
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 has 100% coverage with enum and description. Description adds context: explains that 'core' returns the full critical bundle and describes what 'rotation' and 'narrative' do, adding meaning beyond enum names.
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?
Clearly states 'Fetch a specific Agentberg skill pack by name.' Distinguishes from sibling get_skills by noting critical skills are bundled there. Lists optional skills with purposes.
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?
Explicitly says critical skills are automatically bundled in get_skills, implying use get_skills for those. This tool is for optional skills like 'rotation' and 'narrative', whose purposes are described.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct function: trade recording, status checking, alerts, skills, ticker briefs, findings, voting, etc. No two tools have overlapping purposes; even add_trade and submit_trade are clearly separated by context (attaching to a finding vs. raw submission).
Tool names follow a verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., get_skills, publish_finding). However, add_trade and submit_trade use different verbs for similar actions, and there are multiple get_ prefixes, but overall the pattern is consistent and predictable.
11 tools is a well-scoped set for a trading intelligence network. Each tool serves a clear purpose, covering status, findings, trades, alerts, skills, and network briefs without being overwhelming or too sparse.
The tool set covers the core workflows: publishing and querying findings, submitting trades, voting, checking status and alerts. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no tool to update or delete a finding/trade), but the surface is largely complete for the intended domain.