FinChiefs

Search asset views

search_asset_views

Read-only

Individual directional views (up/down) on assets, with provider, date, horizon, rationale and a link to the source publication. Up/down tallies cover every match; items come in pages (offset / next_offset), spread across providers by default. For the overall picture, call summarize_views first.

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": "search_asset_views"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Items per page, at most 100. Default 100.
`order`	No	"spread" (default) interleaves providers so each page covers as many sources as possible; "newest" is strictly newest first.
`since`	No	Start date YYYY-MM-DD. Default: 30 days ago. The free plan reaches back 7 days for individual items.
`terms`	No	Subject words to match (assets, tickers, countries, central banks, companies, themes). Whole-word, case-insensitive; any term may match. Include synonyms and tickers, e.g. ["gold", "xau", "bullion"]. Omit to get everything in range. Matched against the asset name.
`until`	No	End date YYYY-MM-DD, inclusive. Default: today.
`offset`	No	Skip this many items; pass the previous response's next_offset to read the next page.
`direction`	No
`asset_class`	No
`provider_id`	No	Limit to one research provider (id from list_providers).
`search_rationale`	No	Also match terms in the rationale text (for themes like "tariffs" that are not asset names). Default false.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower, but the description still adds real behavior: results are paged via offset/next_offset, providers are spread across pages by default, and up/down tallies cover every match while items do not. It doesn't mention rate limits or what happens at the edge of the free-plan 7-day window beyond the schema note.

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?

Three sentences, no filler, and the content description and pagination facts are front-loaded before the sibling routing hint. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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?

With 10 parameters, no output schema, and no required fields, the description fills the necessary gaps: it sketches the return shape (fields plus up/down tallies), explains paging, and points at summarize_views for aggregation. Nothing essential to a correct first call 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 description coverage is already 80%, so the schema does most of the work and the baseline is 3. The description only adds meaning for one parameter (the default spread behavior of `order` and how `offset`/`next_offset` pair up), which is useful but marginal given how thoroughly the schema documents terms, since/until, and search_rationale.

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?

The description names a specific resource (individual directional up/down views on assets) and enumerates the returned fields (provider, date, horizon, rationale, source link), so the agent knows exactly what this tool yields. It distinguishes itself from summarize_views, but never differentiates from the closely named sibling search_macro_views, which an agent could easily confuse with it.

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?

"For the overall picture, call summarize_views first" gives explicit alternative routing, and "omics: omit to get everything in range" plus the default-spread note clarify intended usage. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it (e.g. versus search_macro_views) or what the free-plan constraint implies for query design.

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

All FinChiefs tools Inspect

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

Need Help?