Get risk dashboard
get_risk_dashboardHousehold risk dashboard — volatility, VaR, concentration, drawdown.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| household_id | No |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
get_risk_dashboardHousehold risk dashboard — volatility, VaR, concentration, drawdown.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| household_id | 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 cover the key behavioral traits by declaring readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description does not contradict these annotations and adds context about the dashboard's metric content, but it does not disclose any additional behavioral details such as snapshot timing or data freshness.
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, front-loaded sentence that names the resource and lists the most relevant metrics with no wasted words. It is highly scannable and adds value beyond the title.
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 tool with one optional parameter, read-only annotations, and an output schema, the description is minimally viable. The main gaps are the lack of sibling differentiation and the weak household_id explanation, which prevent the definition from being fully self-sufficient.
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?
With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate for the undocumented household_id parameter. The word 'Household' gives a weak semantic clue, but it does not explain how household_id is used, that it is optional, or what an empty value means.
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 a household risk dashboard and names specific risk metrics it contains: volatility, VaR, concentration, and drawdown. This is clear about what the tool provides, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from the closely related get_portfolio_risk sibling.
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 explicit usage guidance is provided. The description does not state when to use this tool versus get_portfolio_risk, get_portfolio_positions, or get_drift_snapshot, leaving the selection logic entirely to the agent's inference.
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.