get_discovery[RECEIPTS — experimental] Emergent edge discovery: corroboration class-combinations mined from the shadow ledger vs realized forward returns, ranked by measured edge (honesty-gated, both-halves). Surfaces patterns nobody hand-coded. status=accruing until the ledger fills (~60-90d). Candidate, not advice.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds valuable behavioral context: it reveals the tool is experimental, with a status that accrues over 60-90 days, and that outputs are candidates, not advice. Terms like 'honesty-gated, both-halves' suggest internal validation mechanisms. This provides transparency about data maturity and result reliability that annotations do not cover.
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 relatively concise at about four sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded after a label. However, it is dense with unexplained jargon like 'corroboration class-combinations,' 'shadow ledger,' and 'honesty-gated, both-halves,' which may hinder quick comprehension. It earns its place but could be clearer.
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 output schema, the description only hints at return values by stating it surfaces ranked patterns, but does not specify the format or structure. It also leaves key concepts like 'shadow ledger' undefined. The experimental status and accrual period are useful, but for a complex discovery tool, the description is not fully complete.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the input schema is empty (100% schema description coverage). Per the baseline for zero parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and it does not introduce confusion about inputs.
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 identifies the tool as an 'emergent edge discovery' mechanism that mines corroboration class-combinations from a shadow ledger and ranks them by measured edge. This is a specific verb+resource statement that distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_signal or get_prices, which focus on particular data retrieval. The phrase 'Surfaces patterns nobody hand-coded' reinforces its unique purpose, though some jargon makes it less immediately clear.
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 usage for discovering emergent patterns rather than standard data retrieval, noting it is experimental and that status is accruing until the ledger fills. It also cautions 'Candidate, not advice.' However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions, leaving the usage context somewhat implicit.
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.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes with detailed descriptions, but there are clusters of similar concepts (e.g., get_liquidity_map vs get_liquidation_map, get_state vs get_state_brief, multiple signal-related tools) that could cause misselection despite thorough documentation.
All tools follow a consistent lowercase verb_noun pattern, predominantly get_* nouns, with only a few non-get verbs like list_signals, rank_trades, log_trade, etc., but the style is uniform.
With 52 tools, the surface is extremely heavy for an agent to navigate. While the server's scope is broad, the count far exceeds the typical 3-15 range and falls into the 'too many' category.
The tool set covers the full lifecycle for journaling, signals, market analysis, and proof, with no major dead ends. Minor gaps exist, such as no dedicated get_trade_by_id (workaround via get_journal) and no get_market_state tool despite being referenced in get_state.