track_recordEvery forward call HillSignal made since May 2025, verified against SPY 30 days later, with the inclusion rules and the miss rate.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, which signal safety and repeatability. The description 'No description available.' does not contradict these annotations. However, the description adds zero behavioral context beyond the annotations. With annotations covering the safety profile, no contradiction exists, and a baseline 3 is appropriate since the description neither helps nor hurts behavioral transparency.
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?
An empty description is under-specification, not conciseness. There is no information to evaluate for front-loading or sentence economy. A single title line plus 'No description available' does not constitute a structured definition. This is not concise; it is absent.
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 description is completely inadequate. Even with a 0-parameter schema and read-only annotations, the tool name 'track_record' plus title 'HillSignal forward track record' suggest a dataset, but no explanation of what 'forward calls' means, what data is returned, or how it relates to sibling tools. An agent cannot correctly invoke or interpret this tool's results. Completeness is essentially zero.
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 parameters, so there is nothing to document. Baseline 4 applies for tools with no parameters. The description says 'No description available,' which is irrelevant here since no parameter semantics are needed. The schema itself fully defines the calling contract with an empty object.
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 is empty for this tool. The title 'HillSignal forward track record' identifies a resource-specific metric, but no description exists. The description says 'No description available.' This is a tautology that restates the title without any verb or resource-specific action. An agent cannot determine what this tool does from the description alone, especially alongside 14 sibling tools covering similar political finance data types. Purpose clarity fails completely.
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 zero guidance on when to use this tool vs. siblings. No context about whether this is a read-only lookup, a summary statistic, or a queryable dataset. With 14 sibling tools covering PACs, politicians, insider trades, and other data, an agent has no way to route to this tool correctly. No usage guidance whatsoever.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.