get_daily_briefTroy's daily market brief. Provide api_key for personalized brief, or omit for the latest Stack Signal market synthesis.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| api_key | No | TroyStack API key for personalized brief (optional) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the burden. It discloses that the response varies based on whether api_key is provided (personalized vs. generic synthesis), which is useful. However, it does not mention what happens with an invalid api_key, data freshness, or whether any side effects occur (though presumably read-only).
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 two sentences and immediately states the tool's purpose, then explains parameter behavior. There is no fluff or redundant information, making it efficiently front-loaded.
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 simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but leaves gaps. It does not explain what the brief contains, how recent the data is, or how 'Stack Signal market synthesis' relates to sibling get_stack_signal. For a simple daily brief tool, this might suffice, but more detail on return content would strengthen completeness.
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?
The schema only describes api_key as 'TroyStack API key for personalized brief (optional)'. The tool description adds crucial meaning: providing the key yields a personalized brief, while omitting it yields the latest Stack Signal synthesis. This conditional behavior goes beyond the schema's bare description.
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 provides Troy's daily market brief, with a specific resource and action. It distinguishes between personalized (with api_key) and generic (without) outputs, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_stack_signal which may overlap in content.
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 gives clear usage guidance for the tool's two modes (provide api_key or omit), but does not say when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_stack_signal. Usage context is implied by the name, but no explicit exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.
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.
Most tools target distinct resources and actions (portfolio, spot prices, history, COMEX vault, coin melt, receipts). However, get_portfolio and get_analytics both report cost basis and P/L, and get_daily_brief and get_stack_signal both provide market commentary, creating mild ambiguity.
All tools follow a clear verb_noun snake_case pattern, with nine get_* prefixed tools and three distinct action verbs (add_, chat_, scan_). Naming is consistent and predictable.
12 tools is well-scoped for a precious metals platform covering portfolio management, market data, and specialized calculations. Each tool serves a distinct function within that domain.
The server supports adding and reading holdings but lacks update/delete operations for holdings, creating a dead end for correcting or removing entries. Market data coverage is thorough, but portfolio lifecycle management is incomplete.