Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Folionomiq

by com.folionomiq
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

One holding across its whole range

sweep_holding
Read-onlyIdempotent

One holding already in the portfolio, measured at every weight from none to all, the rest of the money shared out in proportion: volatility, its share of the risk and the number of independent bets at each point. Typical questions: 'How much BND does it take to change anything?'; 'Show me my portfolio with 0% to 100% QQQ.'; 'At what weight does gold start to matter here?'. Instead: for one specific change, test_a_change. For a holding not yet owned, check_before_you_buy. It never says which weight to hold. It does not recommend, predict or calculate tax.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
baseNoCurrency code every figure is expressed in: USD, EUR, GBP, CAD… Default USD.
tickerYesThe holding to sweep; must be one of `holdings`.
holdingsYesWhat is held: {ticker: number}, 1 to 100 holdings. Weights in any scale (60/20/20 or 0.6/0.2/0.2) or money amounts in the base currency (60000/20000/20000): `units` says which; without it, holdings adding up to 1 or 100 are read as percentages, anything else as money, which makes the falls come out in money. Tickers as the exchange lists them (VOO, VWCE.DE, EQQQ.DE, XAW.TO; 'CASH.USD' for cash). Example: {"VTI": 60, "VXUS": 20, "BND": 20}.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
endNoWindow end.
dataNoWhere the prices came from and what was missing or repaired.
kindNoKind of figures (counterfactual).
kneeNoWeight below which most of the change happens, when there is one.
noteNoOne sentence on where the change comes from.
startNoWindow start.
_fenceYesWhat these figures are and are not: descriptive, no forecast, no advice. Repeat its sense when presenting the result.
pointsNoPer weight: weight, vol (volatility), risk_share (that holding's share of the risk), effective_bets, top_factor_share.
tickerNoThe holding swept.
total_changeNoChange in volatility from none to the current weight.
redistributionNoHow the rest of the money is spread at each point.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / holdings / description
      Previous value: -"What is held: {ticker: number}, 1 to 100 holdings. Weights in any scale (60/20/20 or 0.6/0.2/0.2) or money amounts in the base currency (60000/20000/20000): holdings adding up to 1 or 100 are read as percentages, anything else as money, which makes the falls come out in money. Tickers as the exchange lists them (VOO, VWCE.DE, EQQQ.DE, XAW.TO; 'CASH.USD' for cash). Example: {\"VTI\": 60, \"VXUS\": 20, \"BND\": 20}."New value: +"What is held: {ticker: number}, 1 to 100 holdings. Weights in any scale (60/20/20 or 0.6/0.2/0.2) or money amounts in the base currency (60000/20000/20000): `units` says which; without it, holdings adding up to 1 or 100 are read as percentages, anything else as money, which makes the falls come out in money. Tickers as the exchange lists them (VOO, VWCE.DE, EQQQ.DE, XAW.TO; 'CASH.USD' for cash). Example: {\"VTI\": 60, \"VXUS\": 20, \"BND\": 20}."
  2. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / base / description
      Previous value: -"Currency every figure is expressed in (USD, EUR, GBP, CAD…). Default USD."New value: +"Currency code every figure is expressed in: USD, EUR, GBP, CAD… Default USD."
    • changedInput schema / properties / holdings / description
      Previous value: -"What is held: {ticker: weight or amount}. Weights need not sum to one; amounts in the base currency are also accepted (then the crises are shown in money). 1 to 100 holdings. Tickers as the exchange lists them (VOO, VWCE.DE, XAW.TO; 'CASH.USD' for cash)."New value: +"What is held: {ticker: number}, 1 to 100 holdings. Weights in any scale (60/20/20 or 0.6/0.2/0.2) or money amounts in the base currency (60000/20000/20000): holdings adding up to 1 or 100 are read as percentages, anything else as money, which makes the falls come out in money. Tickers as the exchange lists them (VOO, VWCE.DE, EQQQ.DE, XAW.TO; 'CASH.USD' for cash). Example: {\"VTI\": 60, \"VXUS\": 20, \"BND\": 20}."
  3. Added

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, and the description adds meaningful scope beyond that: it reports volatility, risk share, and independent bets at each weight, and explicitly refuses to recommend an optimal weight or calculate tax. It does not discuss edge cases or error behavior, but the output schema covers return structure.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The purpose is front-loaded and the alternatives and limitations are clearly organized. The three example questions and multiple clarifications are useful rather than redundant, though the description is longer than strictly necessary.

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?

For a complex analytical tool with a full output schema, complete parameter descriptions, and safety annotations, the definition is complete enough to call correctly. It explains the sweep behavior, the metrics, the intended questions, the alternatives, and the non-goals.

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%, so ticker, holdings, base, weight scale, and ticker format are already fully documented in the schema. The description reinforces that the holding must already be in the portfolio and that the sweep covers every weight, but does not add syntax or constraints beyond the schema.

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 analysis verb/resource: sweeping one existing holding across every weight from 0% to 100%, with the rest shared proportionally. It also names the metrics produced (volatility, risk share, independent bets) and distinguishes itself from test_a_change and check_before_you_buy.

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 explicit use cases through example questions like 'Show me my portfolio with 0% to 100% QQQ' and clear alternatives: test_a_change for one specific change, check_before_you_buy for a holding not yet owned. It also states what the tool does not do, including recommending a weight, predicting, or calculating tax.

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

All Folionomiq 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