get_geo_mapGlobal geopolitical intelligence layers over a look-back window.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| layers | No | ||
| region | No | ||
| country | No | ||
| severity | No | ||
| 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?
The annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the look-back window and the notion of layered geopolitical intelligence, which is modest useful context, but it does not describe output behavior, data source, or filtering semantics.
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 compact clause with no filler and front-loads the core concept. A small deduction is warranted because it is a noun phrase rather than an explicit imperative retrieval statement.
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?
With read-only annotations, no required parameters, and an output schema present, the description provides a minimal but usable global scope and time-window concept. However, the complete lack of parameter guidance and usage context makes it only barely adequate for confident non-default invocations.
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%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It only hints at 'layers' and a 'look-back window', which loosely maps to layers and days_back, but it leaves region, country, severity, and value formats completely unexplained.
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 global geopolitical intelligence layers over a look-back window, and the tool name supplies the 'get' verb. It is reasonably distinct from the many financial and portfolio siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast with any alternative.
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 on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. The description does not mention use cases, exclusions, prerequisites, or alternatives, so an agent must infer its applicability entirely from the phrase 'geopolitical intelligence layers'.
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.