FREE feedback: tell us what you needed but didn't get (missing endpoint, wrong output shape, price objection, bug). No payment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| wanted | Yes | ||
| contact | No | ||
| context | No | ||
| category | No | other |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'No payment' but does not disclose what happens to the submitted feedback (e.g., if it's logged, if the agent receives a response, or any rate limits). The behavioral transparency is adequate but not exhaustive.
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 short (one sentence with a list) and front-loaded with 'FREE feedback'. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without extraneous text, though the examples could be more concise internally.
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 tool's simplicity (4 params, 1 required), the description is mostly complete for its straightforward feedback purpose. However, with no explanation of the 'category' parameter's purpose and an output schema present but unaddressed, it could better prepare the agent for what happens after submission.
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 should compensate, but it only adds meaning for the 'wanted' parameter via contextual examples. The other three parameters ('contact', 'context', 'category') are not explained at all—no guidance on format, acceptable values, or when to provide them.
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 the tool is for providing feedback about missing or problematic aspects of the API, using specific examples like 'missing endpoint, wrong output shape, price objection, bug'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being a free-form feedback mechanism rather than a data retrieval or action tool.
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 the tool should be used when the user needs something that isn't provided by other endpoints, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use it vs. other tools or provide exclusions. The context example 'FREE feedback' suggests it's for unmet needs, but no direct comparison to alternatives is given.
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.
Tools are generally distinct in purpose: financial data (candles, history, context, earnings, filings, macro, universe) are separate from web scraping (read, unlock, screenshot) and location/search (local, place, search). Minor overlap between 'history' and 'candles' but descriptions clarify. 'read' vs 'unlock' are differentiated by handling of bot-walls. Overall, an agent can likely select the right tool without confusion.
Tool names lack a consistent pattern. Some are single nouns (calendar, candles, earnings), some are verbs (read, unlock), and one uses an underscore (url_safety). There is no verb_noun or uniform casing convention, making the naming scheme feel ad-hoc and less predictable.
16 tools is a moderate number that covers multiple domains (financial, web, location, safety). It is on the higher side but not excessive. Each tool has a clear role, though some domains could be collapsed (e.g., read/unlock/screenshot). Overall, the count feels justified given the broad scope.
The set provides extensive read-only financial data (prices, earnings, filings, macro, universe) and web retrieval (URL to text/HTML/screenshot). However, the server name 'Agent Newsstant' suggests a news focus, yet there is no dedicated news search or article listing tool. Additionally, missing create/update/delete actions limits the surface to data retrieval only, which may hinder more interactive use cases.