get_stack_signalReturns Stack Signal — TroyStack's curated precious metals market intelligence with Troy's commentary
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max articles to return (default 20) | |
| offset | No | Pagination offset (default 0) | |
| category | No | Optional category filter |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the return content. It does not mention pagination behavior, read-only nature, response format, or any side effects. The schema's limit/offset parameters hint at pagination, but the description adds no behavioral context.
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 one sentence, immediate and free of fluff. It front-loads the core function with 'Returns Stack Signal' and adds helpful nuance about the content source. It earns its place with no wasted words.
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?
For a simple read tool with fully documented schema parameters, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context about the return structure and fails to differentiate from other market intelligence tools. Given the sibling count, more contextual guidance would improve 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 input schema already provides descriptions for all three parameters (limit, offset, category), achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, leaving the schema to carry the full burden without extra context.
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 returns 'Stack Signal' market intelligence with commentary, using a specific resource name. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_daily_brief or get_speculation by referencing a uniquely named product. The verb 'Returns' is clear and direct.
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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools. An agent would have to infer from the name and description alone.
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.