Manawa Terminal

Run DeepDive analysis

run_deepdive

Queue a full DeepDive suite for a stock using a monthly custom-run grant.

Prepaid search credits cannot pay for this. Free plans have 0 runs;
Basic has 10/month; Pro has 50/month. Re-running a ticker already
unlocked this month does not consume another grant. The call returns
as soon as the job is queued — do not poll.

Args:
    ticker: Stock symbol (e.g. "AAPL")

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ticker`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the description correctly implies a non-destructive write operation (queuing). It adds crucial behavioral details: it consumes a monthly grant, returns as soon as queued, and does not support polling. The only gap is that it doesn't explicitly state the job's asynchronous nature or what happens if the grant is exhausted, but overall the transparency is high.

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 extremely concise: only one paragraph plus an Args section. Every sentence provides critical information—purpose, payment method, plan limits, re-running behavior, and response semantics. No wasted words.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the tool has one parameter, no nested objects, and no output schema visible for the queued result, the description covers the core workflow well. It mentions what the call returns (immediate queuing acknowledgment) but does not explain how to retrieve the analysis results later, which could be a gap for the agent. However, the lack of output schema reduces the need for return value details.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It defines the single parameter "ticker" with an example, which adds meaning beyond the schema's type-only definition. A brief explanation of what the parameter represents would be ideal, but the provided example "AAPL" is sufficient for correct usage.

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 uses the specific verb "Queue" and resource "full DeepDive suite for a stock using a monthly custom-run grant." It clearly identifies the action and distinguishes from sibling tools like finance_search or list_alerts, which are not analyses.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool (queue a DeepDive analysis) and when not to (prepaid search credits cannot pay for this). Provides tiered usage limits, explains that re-running an unlocked ticker does not consume a grant, and warns that the call returns immediately without polling. No alternatives are named, but the context is clear.

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?