Skip to main content
Glama

AlpineDataWorks Intelligence Server

by com.alpinedataworks

Metals-Complex Stress

adw.adw_112
Read-only

Returns a 0-100 metals-complex stress score (weekly composite z-score of gold volatility, momentum, and the gold/silver ratio; ~20yr history since 2006) with an IOM carrying top_drivers and source_lineage. Call when the user asks about gold, silver, precious-metals stress, safe-haven conditions, or mining/metals risk, or when timing gold hedge sizing (stress above 70) versus releasing hedges for risk-on allocation (calm below 40). Updates: weekly.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
daysNoOptional: return a daily HISTORY series of the last N days (up to 5 years of real archived data) instead of the current snapshot. History requires Gold tier; without it, the current snapshot is returned.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds the score's composition, update frequency, history length, and the IOM fields (top_drivers, source_lineage). This gives the agent important behavioral context about data provenance and output structure.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two information-dense sentences plus a short update note. Every phrase contributes: the core function, the composite details, the usage contexts, and the update cadence. No wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description adequately conveys the return value (score range, IOM fields) and parameter behavior via the schema. It leaves the acronym 'IOM' unexplained, which may be unclear to an agent, but overall the tool is well-specified.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single 'days' parameter, which is fully explained in the schema including the Gold tier requirement. The tool description does not add parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('0-100 metals-complex stress score') with a precise definition (weekly composite z-score of gold volatility, momentum, and gold/silver ratio) and history span. This clearly distinguishes it as a precious-metals stress indicator among the many numeric sibling tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance for gold/silver queries and hedge-sizing decisions with numerical thresholds. It does not name alternative tools or give when-not-to-use constraints, but the context is clear and actionable.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All AlpineDataWorks Intelligence Server toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation1/5

With 318 tools named adw.adw_###, agents cannot tell them apart without reading full descriptions. Multiple tools cover the same domain (e.g., at least three USD strength scores: adw_055, adw_250, adw_580; four supply-chain stress scores: adw_009, adw_019, adw_020, adw_547), making misselection highly likely.

Naming Consistency3/5

The vast majority follow a consistent numeric ID pattern (adw.adw_###), but a small set breaks this with descriptive snake_case names (adw.catalog, adw.sample, adw.county_cancer, etc.). The numeric IDs are predictable but convey no semantic meaning, mixing with the few named tools and creating moderate inconsistency.

Tool Count1/5

318 tools is far beyond any reasonable scope for an intelligence server; even the largest sophisticated APIs rarely exceed 50. This extreme count suggests poor curation and will overwhelm agents with choice, making efficient tool selection impractical.

Completeness3/5

The server covers an extremely broad range of domains (crypto, macro, supply chain, healthcare, climate, county demographics), and includes discovery tools like adw.catalog and adw.sample. However, the surface is redundant and not systematically complete—many overlapping indices exist while other potentially valuable operations (e.g., raw data export, historical trend queries) are missing, leaving moderate gaps.

Resources