Full market-structure snapshot: per-sector price-vs-fundamentals divergence signals (z-scored, flagged 🔴/🟠/🟢), token-to-equity cross-asset links, and warehouse row counts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses what the output contains (divergence signals, cross-asset links, row counts) and the signal format (z-scored, color-flagged), which is helpful. However, with no annotations, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it mention staleness, sorting, or any side effects.
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?
A single, information-dense sentence that front-loads 'Full market-structure snapshot' and then lists the key output components. Every phrase adds detail without padding.
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 no-parameter list tool, the description covers the main return contents and signal format sufficiently. It does not explicitly distinguish when to choose this over sibling tools, but the output schema likely fills the remaining gaps.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so the 100% schema coverage is trivially complete. The description focuses on output content rather than parameters, which is appropriate for a no-argument listing tool.
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?
Uses 'Full market-structure snapshot' to describe the tool's output and enumerates concrete contents: per-sector divergence signals with z-scores and flags, token-to-equity links, and warehouse row counts. This makes the purpose clear and gives some distinction from sibling tools, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to choose this tool over siblings like divergence_radar or cross_asset_links. The description implies a broad overview, but it never states when it should be used versus a more specialized tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.