Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Folionomiq

by com.folionomiq
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Before and after a proposed change

test_a_change
Read-onlyIdempotent

Any change to one portfolio, measured before it is made: current and proposed holdings side by side on the same prices. In: two sets of holdings. Out: structure, share of the risk, falls in past crises, and what the change adds or removes; the figures are in the structured result. Typical questions: 'What happens if I sell half my QQQ and buy BND?'; 'Compare my portfolio now with this rebalanced version.'; 'I want to swap VXUS for VWO: before and after?'. Instead: for adding ONE new holding (how much of it is already owned, and a 'kept as cash' column) use check_before_you_buy. For one holding at every weight, sweep_holding. For separate unrelated portfolios, compare_portfolios. It does not recommend, predict or calculate tax.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
endNoOptional window end, YYYY-MM-DD.
baseNoCurrency code every figure is expressed in: USD, EUR, GBP, CAD… Default USD.
startNoOptional window start, YYYY-MM-DD.
currentYesWhat is held now, {ticker: weight}.
proposedYesWhat would be held after the change, {ticker: weight}.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
axesNoPer axis: label, the question it answers, before, after.
dataNoWhere the prices came from and what was missing or repaired.
kindNoKind of figures (counterfactual).
_fenceYesWhat these figures are and are not: descriptive, no forecast, no advice. Repeat its sense when presenting the result.
deltasNoPer measure: label, before, after, direction, unit.
windowNoThe shared window: start, end, years, which holding set it, crises inside.
similarNoMeasures that barely moved.
summaryNoOne sentence on what the change moves.
improvedNoMeasures that moved one way.
worsenedNoMeasures that moved the other way.
historicalNoPer past crisis: before and after.
introducesNoRisk the proposed holdings add that the current ones did not carry.
kind_meansNoWhat that kind means.
limitationsNoWhat this comparison cannot show.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field 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."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context — the comparison is on the same prices, figures are in the structured result, and the tool does not recommend, predict, or calculate tax. It does not need to repeat safety hints.

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 core purpose and comparison are front-loaded, followed by useful alternatives and examples. It is somewhat lengthy but each section serves a distinct purpose; minor tightening could improve it.

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 annotations covering safety, a full input schema, and an output schema, the description provides everything needed: what goes in, what comes out, when to use it versus siblings, and what it deliberately does not do.

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%, including clear descriptions for current and proposed holdings and optional date/currency parameters. The description adds conceptual meaning ('two sets of holdings') but does not elaborate on the {ticker: weight} format or date/currency semantics 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?

States a specific verb and resource — measuring a portfolio change before it is made — and sharply distinguishes it from sibling tools. The 'In/Out' framing and concrete examples make the operation unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly names alternatives and the conditions that select them: check_before_you_buy for one new holding, sweep_holding for one holding at every weight, compare_portfolios for unrelated portfolios. Typical questions further anchor when to use it.

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