DataSnack

Read a DataSnack model

get_model

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read one DataSnack model: the question, the market's number now, the model's forecast for seven days from now, how the model works, its sources and its graded record including misses.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "get_model"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	A model id (such as ch:5eed0a7e11a0) or a https://datasnack.ai/m/... page URL

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes	The canonical datasnack.ai page for this answer
`as_of`	No	When the data was last worked on (RFC 3339), if known

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 10, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral note beyond that: the record is "graded" and includes misses, warning the agent the payload contains unfavorable results. It says nothing about failure modes for a bad id or URL, or about freshness of the quoted market number.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted clauses, but roughly two thirds of it enumerates returned fields that the output schema already specifies, so that length does not earn its place. A shorter core ("Read one model's forecast and graded track record") would carry the same selection value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a low-risk single-parameter read tool with annotations and an output schema, the definition covers what an agent needs to select and invoke it correctly. The only real gap is behavior on an unresolvable id, which is a minor omission given the read-only, idempotent profile.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single id parameter already documents both accepted forms (model id like ch:5eed0a7e11a0 or a datasnack.ai/m/... URL). The description adds no meaning about the id, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource ("Read one DataSnack model") and scopes it to a single record, which is enough to separate it from list-style siblings like search_models or list_library. It never names an alternative explicitly, so differentiation is inferred from the resource noun rather than stated.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: the agent must already know it needs full detail on one model and already has an id. There is no explicit "use this when..." or "use X instead when..." routing, and no mention of what to do when the id is unknown.

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

All DataSnack tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?