hood_gap_sessions
Read-onlyIdempotent
Session-by-session gap history for one ticker (each overnight/weekend session is a separate row).
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | ||
| ticker | Yes |
Otto Data — Robinhood Chain
by app.ottodata
TDQS
A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the tool read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the output row structure—each overnight/weekend session is a separate row—and the per-ticker scope, which is not captured in the annotations.
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 entire description is a single, well-structured sentence. It front-loads the core concept ('session-by-session gap history') and uses a parenthetical to clarify row granularity without 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 minimal schema and no output schema, the description provides a strong conceptual model of what the tool returns (gap history per session). However, it omits the role of the 'days' parameter and the precise definition of 'gap,' leaving some ambiguity for an agent invoking the tool with non-default options.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and while the description indicates the tool operates on 'one ticker,' it does not explain the meaning or effect of the 'days' parameter. The default of 14 is present in the schema, but the description offers no guidance on how days influences the result.
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 identifies the tool as providing session-by-session gap history for a single ticker, with a parenthetical explaining that overnight/weekend sessions appear as separate rows. This distinguishes it from related tools like hood_gaps_summary and hood_gaps_live by emphasizing the historical per-session granularity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies historical use ('history') but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives such as hood_gaps_live or hood_gaps_summary. No exclusion criteria or alternative comparisons are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, with detailed descriptions that separate e.g. hood_basis_snapshot from hood_basis_history and perp_spot_basis. A few clusters like flow_summary vs token_flows and multiple gap/basis tools could still cause slight ambiguity, but the descriptions are strong enough to guide correct selection.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case pattern with domain prefixes (hood_, agent_, competition_, partner_), and verbs are used predictably (report_, execute_, get_, etc.). There is no mixing of conventions or vague generic names.
Tool Count3/5
39 tools is on the high side, but the server covers a very broad domain (market data, signals, trading execution, competition, partner APIs, agent reporting). While many tools earn their place, a few could be consolidated (e.g., gap/basis variants), making it feel heavier than necessary for typical usage.
Completeness4/5
The surface covers the core lifecycle: market data, signals, paper/real/partner trading, position tracking, and performance reporting. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no explicit wallet balance or order cancellation), but the core workflows are well-covered and derived endpoints fill most needs.