FinFam Financial Calculators

search_pulse

Read-onlyIdempotent

Search past FinFam Pulse editions by topic (e.g. "Fed", "mortgage rates", "layoffs").

    Matches both the editions' prose and their individual story cards. Each result
    is one dated edition with its headline, paragraph, permalink, sources, and the
    story cards that matched. Best match first, newest as the tiebreak.

    Args:
        query: Topic or keywords to match
        days: How many days back to search (default 30, max 365)
        limit: Maximum number of editions to return (default 5, max 20)
        category: Optional card category filter — one of markets, rates, housing, jobs,
            spending, debt, money_drama, human_interest, retirement, taxes

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`days`	No
`limit`	No
`query`	Yes
`category`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to repeat safety. The description adds behavioral context: it returns one dated edition per query match and explains the result structure (headline, paragraph, permalink, sources, story cards). It also transparently states that the search is not just on the headline but on prose and cards, which is beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is concise and efficient. It includes a concrete example of queries ('Fed', 'mortgage rates', 'layoffs') and describes parameters in a straightforward list. No fluff, each sentence contributes to understanding what the tool does and how to use it.

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

Completeness5/5

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

The tool has a moderate complexity (4 parameters, output schema exists). The description is complete: explains result structure, ordering, provides examples, lists category values, and gives defaults/maxima for parameters. Output schema covers return values, so the description doesn't need to. Combined with annotations, this is highly complete.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The description adds semantic meaning beyond the schema. For 'query' it explains what to match: 'Topic or keywords to match'. For 'days' and 'limit' it details defaults and max bounds. For 'category' it lists all possible values (markets, rates, housing, etc.) and explains it filters card category. Although the schema has 0% coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter's purpose and valid values.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Search past FinFam Pulse editions by topic' and explicitly lists the resource (FinFam Pulse editions) and the action (search). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_pulse (which likely retrieves a single edition) and search_views (which searches views) by specifying it searches editions' prose and story cards.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly provides usage context: it matches both prose and story cards, and each result includes a headline, paragraph, permalink, sources, and matched story cards. It also explains result ordering ('Best match first, newest as the tiebreak'). It differentiates from siblings by noting it's the tool for searching fictional editions (e.g., 'Fed', 'mortgage rates') rather than views.

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

All FinFam Financial Calculators tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose. The calculator tools cover search, contract, source, and execution, while the pulse tools cover current retrieval and search. No two tools overlap in function, so an agent can reliably select the correct one.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case: calculate_view, get_pulse, get_view_signature, get_view_source, search_pulse, search_views. The verbs and nouns are clear, and the naming scheme is uniform across the set.

Tool Count5/5

Six tools is well within the ideal range for a focused server. Each tool addresses a distinct need within the financial calculator and news digest scope, making the count feel neither bloated nor sparse.

Completeness4/5

The calculator lifecycle is well covered: find a view, understand its inputs, optionally inspect its source, and run it. The pulse feature also covers current retrieval and historical search. A minor gap is the absence of a direct 'get view' operation independent of search, but this is workable via search_views.

Resources

Need Help?