Manawa Terminal

Report a bug

report_bug

Log a bug in the same inbox as the terminal bug button (5 per user per day).

Use only when the user asks, or when you have confirmed a real data/UI
error. Do not file speculative bugs. Pass ticker/section so admins get a
terminal URL; page_url is optional if it is already a terminal.manawa.app link.

Args:
    description: What is wrong (10–2000 characters)
    ticker: Optional stock symbol the bug is about
    section: Optional tab (overview, financials, thesis, valuation, …)
    page_url: Optional full terminal URL if already known

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ticker`	No
`section`	No
`page_url`	No
`description`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description reveals key behaviors: it is a write operation (logging a bug), has a daily rate limit, and data goes to the same inbox as the terminal bug button. This adds context beyond the minimal annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) and discloses 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is concise and front-loaded with key purpose and usage. However, the parameter list uses a markdown 'Args:' block that is somewhat readable but could be more structured (e.g., bullet points) for easier parsing. Still, no unnecessary sentences.

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?

Given 0% schema coverage and no enums, the description covers everything needed: parameter semantics, use case, rate limit, and admins' needs. The output schema exists, so return values need not be explained in the description. The tool is simple and the description is fully adequate.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates. Each parameter is explained with context: description's character range (10–2000), ticker as stock symbol, section as tab names, and page_url as optional terminal link. This adds substantial meaning beyond the schema titles.

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 'Log a bug' with a specific verb and resource. It also mentions the rate limit (5 per user per day) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools, none of which relate to bug reporting.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: use only when the user asks or when a real data/UI error is confirmed, and do not file speculative bugs. It also advises passing ticker/section for admin convenience, giving clear when-to-use and what-to-avoid instructions.

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

All Manawa Terminal 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

A3.8/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource and action. Portfolio, alert, watchlist, library, journal, and search tools have clearly separated purposes with no overlapping functionality. Even similar tools like get_portfolio_statistics and get_positions provide different outputs.

Naming Consistency4/5

The majority follow a clear verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., create_portfolio, delete_library_item). However, 'finance_search' inverts the verb-noun order and 'run_deepdive' uses a less common verb, creating minor but noticeable exceptions.

Tool Count4/5

31 tools is on the high side but each serves a distinct purpose across portfolio management, alerts, watchlists, library, journal, search, and bug reporting. The library subsystem alone accounts for 11 tools (CRUD + versions + move + rename + search), which is justifiable for a full document manager.

Completeness3/5

Core operations are present but several lifecycle gaps exist: no delete_watchlist, delete_portfolio, update_portfolio, update_alert, or delete_transaction. The journal and deepdive areas also lack update/delete capabilities. Agents may hit dead ends when trying to remove or modify certain resources.

Resources

Need Help?