gunluk_ozetMetalTakip içerik motorunun en güncel Türkçe piyasa analizini (başlık, özet, bağlantı) ve kendi türetilmiş piyasa göstergelerini döndürür. Kaynak atıflı, kişiselleştirilmemiş bilgi.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds value by disclosing return content (title, summary, link), source attribution, and non-personalization, which are beyond annotation scope.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the key action and resource. Every word contributes meaning, with no wasted text.
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 no input schema, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description provides sufficient context about what is returned and its characteristics. Minor gap: no mention of output format or when to use vs siblings, but adequate overall.
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 zero parameters, the schema coverage is 100% and no additional parameter meaning is needed. The description does not add param info, but baseline for 0 params is 4, and no contradiction.
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 returns the most up-to-date Turkish market analysis (title, summary, link) and derived market indicators from MetalTakip. It uses specific verbs and nouns, making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from siblings.
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 use when needing the latest Turkish market summary with derived indicators, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings like 'fetch', 'search', or 'turev_gostergeler'. No exclusions or alternatives are provided.
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 has a clearly distinct purpose: fetch retrieves full articles by ID, gunluk_ozet gives a daily summary, search finds articles, and turev_gostergeler provides computed indicators. No overlap in functionality.
The naming convention is inconsistent: 'fetch' and 'search' are English verbs, while 'gunluk_ozet' and 'turev_gostergeler' are Turkish noun phrases. No uniform pattern is followed.
With 4 tools, the server is well-scoped for a digest service. It covers the essential operations (search, retrieve, summary, indicators) without being too sparse or bloated.
The tool set covers the main workflow (search, fetch, daily summary, derived indicators) but lacks historical data retrieval, trend analysis, or user customization options, which are reasonable omissions for a digest server.