Search for financial calculators matching a question or topic.
Args:
query: Natural language search query (e.g. "should I rent or buy a house")
limit: Maximum number of results to return (default 5, max 20)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating safe read-only behavior. Description is consistent and adds a natural language example but no additional behavioral details like result shape or performance implications. Acceptable but minimal beyond annotations.
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?
Extremely concise – two bullet-style args with clear inline examples. No fluff, every sentence provides value. Properly front-loaded with one-sentence purpose.
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 read-only search tool with only 2 params and an output schema (present but not shown), the description is matching. It covers query use case and limits. Slightly weak in not mentioning what a 'view' is or handling pagination, but acceptable given simplicity and annotations.
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 has no per-parameter descriptions, so description fully compensates by defining 'query' as natural language with example and 'limit' with default and max. Adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare parameter names.
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?
Description clearly states 'Search for financial calculators matching a question or topic' – specific verb+resource+scope. It distinguishes 'views' from sibling 'search_pulse' by explicitly naming financial calculators.
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?
Provides contextual example for query and default/max limit, but does not explicitly say 'use this instead of search_pulse' or describe when alternatives are better. Usage is implied, not contrasted with siblings.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.