Use when the user pastes a strategy, plan, or memo and wants its hidden bets made explicit: extracts the falsifiable, load-bearing assumptions (dated/quantified bets + structural findings). Stateless taster — nothing is stored; the persistent per-company assumption registry with monitoring and a Brier track record is the authenticated tier.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | Strategy / plan / memo text to analyze (plain text). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: statelessness ('nothing is stored') and that it produces 'dated/quantified bets + structural findings'. However, it does not mention error handling, rate limits, or auth requirements, though the tool's simplicity mitigates this.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with usage context. Every sentence serves a purpose: first defines when to use, second states behavior and distinguishes from alternatives. No redundant or filler content.
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 simplicity (1 param, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately covers purpose, usage, and key behavioral traits. The lack of output format details is a minor gap, but the description implies the output structure via 'falsifiable assumptions (dated/quantified bets + structural findings)'.
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 coverage is 100%, baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying the expected content type ('plain text') and context ('strategy / plan / memo text to analyze'), enriching the schema's minimal description. There are no enums or nested objects to complicate.
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 uses specific verb-resource ('extracts the falsifiable, load-bearing assumptions') and clearly states the input (strategy/plan/memo). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'detect_tensions' and a persistent registry, 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?
Explicitly states when to use: 'Use when the user pastes a strategy, plan, or memo and wants its hidden bets made explicit'. Also provides exclusion context by contrasting with a persistent assumption registry, helping agents decide between tools.
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: text analysis (detect_tensions, extract_assumptions), retrieval of published foresight (get_public_report, etc.), listing available resources (list_countries, list_public_spaces), searching (search_spaces), and macro claim resolution (resolve_country_claim). Even similar-sounding tools like detect_tensions and get_public_tensions are clearly differentiated by purpose (user-provided text vs. published analysis).
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with underscores: detect_tensions, extract_assumptions, get_country_indicator, get_public_report, get_public_scenarios, get_public_tensions, list_countries, list_public_spaces, resolve_country_claim, search_spaces. The verbs are specific and the nouns are descriptive, making the naming predictable and easy to understand.
With 10 tools, the server covers its domain—strategic foresight and macro indicators—without being overwhelming. Each tool serves a clear purpose, and the count is appropriate for the scope: text analysis, resource listing, retrieval, search, and claim resolution. There is no unnecessary bloat or deficiency.
The tool set covers the core workflows: analyzing user-provided strategy text, retrieving published foresight reports/scenarios/tensions, listing available spaces and countries, searching, and resolving macro claims. A minor gap is the lack of a tool to retrieve a specific extracted assumption (though extraction is stateless by design). Overall, the surface is largely complete for a public-facing server.
