get_country_briefPer-country geopolitical drilldown (ISO-2).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| iso2 | Yes | ||
| days_back | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds the 'geopolitical drilldown' scope but does not disclose additional behavioral details such as data freshness, output shape, or any limitations beyond what annotations imply.
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 a single, tightly scoped sentence that immediately communicates the tool's purpose and key input format. Every word earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.
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?
The tool has a small parameter set, annotations cover read-only behavior, and an output schema exists, so a long description is not required. However, the absence of any usage guidance and the unaddressed days_back parameter leave moderate gaps for an agent deciding whether and how to invoke this tool.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only clarifies the iso2 parameter by specifying 'ISO-2'. The days_back parameter is not explained, though its name and default value (30) offer some self-evident meaning. Partial compensation is present but not complete.
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 'Per-country geopolitical drilldown (ISO-2)' is concise and specific: it names the resource (country), the scope (per-country), and a distinguishing attribute (geopolitical, ISO-2). It clearly stands apart from sibling briefs like get_market_brief, get_executive_brief, and get_today_brief.
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 implies when to use the tool: when a country-level geopolitical overview is needed, and the ISO-2 aspect signals input requirements. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when this tool should not be used, leaving some inference to the agent.
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.
Most tools are distinct, but several pairs overlap in purpose: get_market_data and list_watchlist both return watchlist prices/signals, and the four 'brief' tools have fuzzy boundaries. Descriptions help, but an agent could easily select the wrong one without deeper context.
The dominant verb_noun pattern (get_* for details, list_* for collections) is clear and consistent in style. There are minor deviations like lookup_index_by_brand and run_technical_analysis, and several plural collections use get_, but these remain readable and mostly predictable.
39 tools is well past the 25+ threshold and represents a heavy surface for an agent to navigate. The broad wealth domain explains some of the count, but many granular getters could be consolidated or curated.
The set covers the advertised wealth surface well—portfolio, risk, credit, real assets, markets, geopolitics, watchlist, goals, family, and documents—but it is read-only and lacks obvious navigation endpoints like list_portfolios or detail views for goals/alerts. Agents can retrieve most data, but not all lifecycle operations or entity enumerations are present.