get_hfa_articleResolve 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 | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
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.