Today's Discord-posted A+/B (same gates as #alerts-a / #alerts-b). Newest first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| min_score | 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the data source, the date scope, and the sort order (newest first). It does not mention timezone handling, empty-result behavior, or access/rate constraints, so it is adequate but incomplete.
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 two short clauses with no filler. It front-loads the core scope and ordering information, and every word adds value.
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 is a simple read-only list operation and has an output schema, so the completeness burden is moderate. The description is enough to invoke it, but the gate definitions and parameter meanings are left ambiguous.
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 must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. It does not explain 'limit' or 'min_score'; the reference to 'same gates as #alerts-a/#alerts-b' loosely hints at score thresholds, but the semantics remain implicit.
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 uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('alert history'), then narrows it further with today's Discord-posted A+/B and newest-first ordering. This clearly distinguishes it from the get_* and check_* sibling tools.
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?
It gives a clear context: use this for today's Discord-posted A+/B alerts using the same gates as #alerts-a/#alerts-b. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is specific enough to route an agent correctly.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct metric or workflow—alert checks, alert lists, gamma maps, volatility indices, replay timelines, execution plans—so an agent can reliably pick the right one from its description. Even the alert-related tools (get_latest_alert, list_alert_history, check_alert_tradeable) have clearly separate outputs.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (mostly get_, plus check_, format_, list_, plan_). This makes the set predictable and easy to scan.
At 32 tools, the surface is heavy and approaches a disorganized collection of endpoints rather than a curated set. Many individual get_* indicators could be grouped into a smaller number of dashboard or snapshot tools without losing clarity.
The server covers the core 0DTE intelligence lifecycle: alerts, historical replays, risk overlays, structure, gamma, volatility, news, and advisory planning. Minor gaps exist—such as a direct quote or option chain feed—but they are not essential to the stated purpose.