Search public Hedge Fund Alpha metadata and find official membership and data product pages.
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Average 3.6/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored.
Each tool targets a distinct operation: getting a single article, listing recent content, searching articles, and four product/catalog lookups with different scopes. They are well-separated with no overlap.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern with snake_case, e.g., get_hfa_article, search_hfa_content. However, there is minor inconsistency: get_hfa_offerings vs get_product, and lookup_catalog vs search_catalog could be more uniform.
7 tools cover the primary use cases for a Hedge Fund Alpha research server: retrieving articles, searching content, and exploring membership products. The count is appropriate for the domain.
The tool set provides full read-only coverage for the stated purpose: article retrieval (single, list, search) and product catalog exploration (offerings, product detail, lookup, search). No significant gaps for a research-oriented server.
get_hfa_articleGet public HFA article metadataAResolve an apex Hedge Fund Alpha article URL within the dated recent-content snapshot to public metadata only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| access | Yes | |
| result | Yes | |
| snapshot | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds context about operating on a 'dated recent-content snapshot' and limiting to 'public metadata', which is useful beyond annotations. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One concise sentence front-loads the core purpose. No wasted words; every part contributes meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema and simple parameters, the description is minimally sufficient but lacks context about when content is 'recent' or what 'public metadata' includes. Could be more helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With schema description coverage at 0%, the description should explain the 'url' parameter. It does not, leaving ambiguity about URL format or expected structure. The single parameter's meaning is assumed but not clarified.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool resolves an HFA article URL to public metadata, using specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'within the dated recent-content snapshot' and 'public metadata only', contrasting with search or list functions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_hfa_content or list_recent_hfa_content. The description implies a specific use case (given URL, get metadata) but does not clarify when not to use it or when to prefer siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_hfa_offeringsGet official HFA offering pagesAReturn official Hedge Fund Alpha membership, data, and licensing pages without making price or availability claims.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. Description adds that it returns pages without price/availability claims, which is useful but not extensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, no wasted words, front-loaded with the key action and resource.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a read-only tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context about what is returned and the constraint on price/availability claims.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. Description adds value by specifying output type (membership, data, licensing pages), meeting the baseline of 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the verb 'return' and resource 'official Hedge Fund Alpha membership, data, and licensing pages', distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_hfa_article' or 'get_product'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_catalog' or 'list_recent_hfa_content'; only a constraint about avoiding price/availability claims.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_productGet an HFA membership productBGet verified detail for one Hedge Fund Alpha membership product or variant using UCP catalog lookup. Read-only; human checkout remains required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| meta | Yes | ||
| catalog | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint true. The description adds the business constraint 'human checkout remains required', which is useful context beyond annotations, but lacks details on error behavior or authentication.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences long with no redundant information. Every part serves a purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has two complex nested parameters and no output schema. The description lacks explanation of what the parameters represent or what the return value looks like, making it incomplete for an agent to effectively use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description provides no details about the parameters (meta and catalog). The phrase 'using UCP catalog lookup' is too vague to explain what values are expected.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get', the resource 'Hedge Fund Alpha membership product or variant', and the method 'UCP catalog lookup'. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_hfa_article and search_catalog.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies read-only usage and notes that human checkout is required, but does not explicitly specify when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_recent_hfa_contentList recent public HFA contentBList recently published metadata from the dated snapshot for an allowlisted public editorial type.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| contentType | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| access | Yes | |
| results | Yes | |
| snapshot | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context: it uses a 'dated snapshot' (point-in-time data) and returns 'metadata' (not full content). However, it does not define what 'recent' means, leaving ambiguity about the recency window.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. It is not overly verbose, though it could be slightly more structured by splitting into two sentences for clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has two parameters and an output schema, the description covers the core function but leaves ambiguity: what is the 'dated snapshot'? How recent is 'recently published'? What does 'allowlisted' mean? The summary does not address comparisons with sibling tools like 'search_hfa_content'.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate. It mentions 'allowlisted public editorial type' which weakly relates to the contentType parameter, but does not enumerate or explain the enum values. The limit parameter is not mentioned at all. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'recently published metadata from the dated snapshot for an allowlisted public editorial type'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_hfa_article' or 'search_hfa_content' by focusing on a list of recent items, but could be more explicit about how it differs from 'search_hfa_content'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_hfa_content'. The description mentions 'allowlisted public editorial type' as a constraint, but does not provide context on when not to use it or suggest other tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
lookup_catalogLook up HFA membership productsALook up one or more verified Hedge Fund Alpha membership products or variants by UCP identifier. Read-only; cannot create a checkout or charge a payment method.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| meta | Yes | ||
| catalog | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds 'cannot create a checkout or charge a payment method,' reinforcing read-only behavior, but does not disclose additional traits like rate limits, error conditions, or return format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences: first states purpose and method, second clarifies read-only constraint. No fluff or redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only lookup with two required parameters and no output schema, the description covers basic purpose and safety. However, it omits parameter structure details (e.g., meaning of meta vs catalog) and return value expectations, which would aid agent understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so parameters have no inline descriptions. The description mentions 'by UCP identifier,' but does not map this to the meta or catalog parameters. The nested structures (meta with profile URI, catalog with ids array) are left unexplained, leaving ambiguity for the agent.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('look up'), the resource ('verified Hedge Fund Alpha membership products or variants'), and the method ('by UCP identifier'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like search_catalog (searching) or get_hfa_article (articles).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes 'Read-only; cannot create a checkout or charge a payment method,' which clarifies when to use (safe queries) and when not to (for creating charges). However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like search_catalog for non-UCP lookups.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_catalogSearch the HFA membership catalogBSearch verified Hedge Fund Alpha membership products and prices using the UCP catalog search capability. Read-only; cannot create a checkout or charge a payment method.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| meta | Yes | ||
| catalog | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint:true, destructiveHint:false, and idempotentHint:true. The description reinforces these by stating it is read-only and cannot charge, and adds that the search is over 'verified' content. This adds value beyond annotations, though it could include additional behavioral details (e.g., pagination behavior, result format).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is exceptionally concise at two sentences, with the core purpose in the first sentence and safety warnings in the second. No superfluous information is present, and key points are front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (nested objects, 2 required params, 0% schema coverage, no output schema), the description is far from complete. It omits parameter semantics, input format, and output expectations. An agent would need to infer too much to use this tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no explanation of the 'meta' and 'catalog' parameters, which are complex nested objects. An AI agent would not understand how to structure the input, making this a critical gap. The description entirely fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool searches the HFA membership catalog for products and prices, with a specific domain and constraints. It uses 'search' as a strong verb and distinguishes the resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like search_hfa_content, which could cause ambiguity for an AI agent.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions the tool is read-only and cannot create checkouts, providing some usage context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., search_hfa_content, lookup_catalog), and does not mention prerequisites or failure scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_hfa_contentSearch public HFA contentASearch a dated snapshot of recent public Hedge Fund Alpha article metadata. Returns titles and links, never article bodies or subscriber content.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| access | Yes | |
| results | Yes | |
| snapshot | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds that the search operates on a 'dated snapshot' of 'recent public' content, and explicitly excludes article bodies and subscriber content.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences efficiently convey purpose, scope, and constraints without redundancy. Essential information is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the output schema exists and the tool is a simple search, the description adequately covers what it does and returns. Minor gap: no mention of pagination or result count behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage and the tool description provides no clarification about parameters like 'query' or 'limit'. The agent must infer from schema alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool searches a dated snapshot of recent public HFA article metadata and returns titles and links, distinguishing it from siblings that retrieve full articles or offerings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly says it never returns article bodies or subscriber content, guiding the agent away from using it for full content. However, it does not specify when to use this tool versus other search or list tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!