list_capabilitiesWhat this Antevo Wealth connector exposes — the whole wealth surface (portfolio, risk, credit, real assets, markets, equity & technical analysis, geopolitics, watchlist, goals, today, family, documents) behind a single connection.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| 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 useful context about the breadth of the surface (portfolio, risk, credit, etc.) but does not describe behavioral details such as whether the result is static or dynamic, or what the returned capability list looks like beyond the output schema.
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 and front-loads the core idea, but the long parenthetical list of domains makes it somewhat dense. Still, each listed domain meaningfully conveys the scope of capabilities, so there is minimal waste.
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 zero-parameter capability-listing tool with an output schema present, the description gives a good high-level inventory of what the connector exposes. It does not explain return structure, but the output schema can carry that burden. The description is adequate for an agent to decide to call this tool for capability discovery.
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 tool has zero parameters and the schema already covers everything relevant. With no parameters to document, the description does not need to add parameter-level semantics, so the baseline of 4 is appropriate.
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 that the tool exposes the full capability surface of the Antevo Wealth connector and enumerates the domains covered. This distinguishes it from the many sibling get_* and list_* tools, which retrieve specific data rather than describe the overall connector surface.
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 that this tool is for discovering the breadth of available wealth-related capabilities, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus siblings or when not to use it. An agent can infer that specific data should be fetched with the appropriate get_*/list_* tool, but the guidance is implicit rather than direct.
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.