search_hfa_contentSearch 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 | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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.
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.