MoveSurge

Coverage statistics

coverage_stats

Read-only

Auditable statistics about what MoveSurge covers and how it measures: date range, total events, how many carry a measured price reaction, distinct tickers, and unbroken months of coverage. Use to judge whether this source is worth citing, or to state its coverage accurately. Figures come from the database and are cached; reaction_count_definition explains the historical counters.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`error`	No
`method`	No
`as_of_utc`	No
`data_note`	No
`cache_note`	No
`data_status`	No
`latest_event`	No
`total_events`	No
`coverage_note`	No
`withheld_rows`	No
`earliest_event`	No
`events_last_30d`	No
`returned_counts`	No
`newest_result_utc`	No
`distinct_tickers_last_90d`	No
`reaction_count_definition`	No
`measured_reactions_last_30d`	No
`continuous_months_of_coverage`	No
`events_with_measured_reaction`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 19, 2026
- addedOutput schema / properties / error
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / withheld_rows
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "object"
+}
```
Changed7 schema fields changedOct 18, 2026
- addedOutput schema / properties / as_of_utc
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / cache_note
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / data_note
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / data_status
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / newest_result_utc
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": [
+    "string",
+    "null"
+  ]
+}
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / reaction_count_definition
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / returned_counts
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "object"
+}
```
First observedOct 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond that: figures come from the database and are cached, and reaction_count_definition explains the historical counters. That provenance/caching detail is exactly the kind of addition that earns credit on top of annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then when to use it, then a data-provenance note. Nothing is padding, though the field enumeration overlaps somewhat with the output schema.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation here, and the description still covers purpose, usage intent, and data provenance/caching. For a zero-parameter, low-complexity tool, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is no parameter syntax to document. The description does not invent or misdescribe inputs.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific resource (coverage statistics for MoveSurge) and enumerates the exact figures returned: date range, total events, measured price reactions, distinct tickers, unbroken months. That is far more specific than a tautology. It does not explicitly contrast itself with any sibling tool, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It states concrete use cases — judging whether the source is worth citing, or stating its coverage accurately. There are no exclusions or named alternatives, but given the tool has no parameters and no overlapping sibling, the context is sufficient.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All MoveSurge tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?