get_macro[CONTEXT] Current macro bias (regime, BTC/ETH bias + conviction, calendar risks). Mirrors REST /macro current snapshot. Honesty overlay applied: fields marked uncalibrated, insufficient-data flags surfaced.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| current | Yes | ||
| history | No | ||
| history_note | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by mentioning the 'honesty overlay' that flags uncalibrated fields and insufficient data, and the mirroring of a REST endpoint. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.
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 three short sentences, each earning its place: what the tool returns, the source (REST mirror), and the data-quality overlay. It is front-loaded with the most important context and contains no filler.
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?
This is a zero-parameter read-only snapshot tool with an output schema present. The description sufficiently conveys the informational content (macro bias, regime, conviction, calendar risks) and behavioral traits (honesty overlay). No critical information is missing for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.
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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameter semantics. The schema coverage is trivially 100%, and the baseline for 0 params is 4, as per the rubric.
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 providing 'current macro bias' with specific components (regime, BTC/ETH bias + conviction, calendar risks), and notes it mirrors the REST /macro current snapshot. This is a specific verb+resource+scope that distinguishes it from the many other get_* tools.
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 when macro bias/context is needed, and the [CONTEXT] prefix signals its role as a context provider. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like get_market_regime or get_economic_calendar, nor does it mention any exclusions or trade-offs.
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.