get_executive_briefThe executive editorial brief — regime, themes, risks, market snapshot.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scope | No | retail |
| 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 covered. The description adds content context by naming the brief's sections, which is useful, but it does not discuss behavior like freshness, coverage, or any limitations beyond what the annotations already convey.
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 sentence that is short and front-loaded with the core idea. The content list after the em dash is useful. It is concise without being padded, though the missing parameter guidance prevents a perfect score.
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?
Given the large set of sibling brief tools and one undocumented parameter, the description is not complete enough for an agent to invoke it confidently. The output schema may cover return values, but the meaning of 'scope' and how this brief differs from get_market_brief, get_today_brief, and get_country_brief remain unclear.
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?
There is one parameter, 'scope', with no schema description, no enum, and 0% schema description coverage. The tool description never mentions 'scope' or explains what values are valid (e.g., retail vs. other segments) or how it changes the brief. The default 'retail' is the only hint, and the description adds no meaning beyond that.
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 identifies the resource as an 'executive editorial brief' and lists what it contains (regime, themes, risks, market snapshot), which is clear enough to understand the tool's basic function. It does not explicitly contrast it with sibling brief tools like get_market_brief or get_today_brief, but the 'executive' qualifier gives some differentiation.
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?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_market_brief, get_country_brief, or get_today_brief. The phrase 'executive editorial brief' implies a high-level audience, but no selection criteria, exclusions, or situational context are provided.
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.