Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

FinChiefs

by com.finchiefs
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Get the Investment Themes board

get_investment_themes
Read-only

FinChiefs' Investment Themes board: the durable themes research houses argue, each an opportunity or a risk, with one vote per house (for / against / mixed), agreement, change in houses, the newest views, tactical vs longer-term tallies, flags (where houses agree, contrarian minorities), what could go wrong (risk themes), positioning in the related futures market, related themes moving the same market the other way, and the By asset view (houses up vs down per asset class). Start here for "what are houses arguing", consensus or crowded trades, risks, and the year-ahead outlook (horizon: "longer_term"). Call get_theme for one theme's houses and named instruments.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_investment_themes"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kindNoOnly opportunities or only risks. Omit for both.
lensNoagree: opportunities 70%+ of houses back (6+ houses). contrarian: a 70%+ majority with at least one house on the other side. rising_contrarian: that minority grew over the last week.
limitNoThemes to return, most houses first. Default 30.
slugsNoSpecific theme slugs (from an earlier result or a related list).
termsNoWhole-word match on theme title, thesis, moves (asset or market), exposure keys and named instruments, e.g. ["gold"], ["japan", "nikkei"], ["semiconductors", "SMH"].
horizonNo"longer_term" (cyclical and strategic views; the year-ahead outlook) or "tactical" keep themes with 3+ houses on that horizon and rank by that tally. Default "all".
by_assetNoInclude the By asset groups (default true).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only cover readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, yet the description discloses the shape of the payload in detail (per-house votes, agreement, weekly change in houses, tactical vs longer-term tallies, contrarian flags, related inverse-market themes, By asset view) — valuable since there is no output schema. It stops short of describing result size, truncation, or cost, so not a 5.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The lead sentence is a long comma-chained enumeration of board contents that is dense to parse, and the actionable routing guidance sits at the end rather than up front. Nothing is strictly irrelevant, but the catalogue of features could be compressed so the usage triggers lead.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Seven optional parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema — the description compensates by explaining the content of the returned board and how to narrow it (kind, lens, terms, horizon). Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the enum, limits and defaults are already documented. The description reinforces only two of them — horizon "longer_term" as the year-ahead outlook and the By asset view — without adding syntax or precedence rules for combining kind, lens, terms and slugs. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose4/5

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

It names the specific resource (the Investment Themes board) and enumerates what it contains — votes per house, agreement, tallies, flags, related futures positioning — and explicitly contrasts itself with get_theme for single-theme lookups. The retrieval verb is only implied by the title rather than stated in the description, which keeps it short of a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It gives concrete entry-point triggers ("Start here for 'what are houses arguing', consensus or crowded trades, risks, and the year-ahead outlook") and names the alternative tool with the condition that selects it ("Call get_theme for one theme's houses and named instruments"). An agent can route between the two without opening either schema.

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

All FinChiefs toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources