tradebasis_research_libraryStatic research/market-report briefs authored by TradeBasis. Call with no arguments to list available briefs, or pass a topic (slug or title) to retrieve a single brief. Returns static markdown.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| topic | No | Optional brief slug or title. Omit to list all available briefs. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states that the content is 'static' and 'returns static markdown,' which implies a read-only operation with no side effects. It also explains the different behavior for list vs. retrieve, providing useful transparency beyond the bare minimum.
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?
The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, and contains zero wasted words. It efficiently covers both invocation modes and the return format.
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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides all necessary context: how to list vs. retrieve, what the parameter means, and what the return value looks like (static markdown). It is complete for the tool's complexity.
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 schema already fully describes the 'topic' parameter (brief slug or title, omit to list all briefs). The description repeats this information without adding new semantic details, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's function: providing static research/market-report briefs, with explicit instructions to list all briefs when called with no arguments or retrieve a single brief by topic. This distinguishes it from the sibling tools (about, pricing) by its focus on research briefs.
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?
The description gives clear usage direction: call with no arguments to list available briefs, or pass a topic (slug or title) to retrieve a specific brief. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the sibling tool names are sufficiently distinct that the use case is obvious.
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: one provides general info about TradeBasis, one details subscription tiers, and one retrieves research briefs. There is no overlap or ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent pattern: the prefix 'tradbasis_' followed by a descriptive noun phrase (about, pricing_and_tiers, research_library). No mixing of conventions.
With 3 tools, the server is slightly minimal but still reasonable for an informational surface. Each tool has a clear role, and the count feels appropriate for the scope of providing static content.
The tool set covers the core informational needs (about, pricing, research) for the TradeBasis service. Some minor gaps exist (e.g., no FAQ or contact tool), but it is largely complete for its stated purpose.