fm_book_statusA signalflo fund manager's own book: which calls are open, how many have closed, and the deep links to the desk and dashboard. Use this first when a manager asks what is on their book right now.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tenant_slug | Yes | Your desk slug on storyflo. | |
| access_token | Yes | Your access token — the same one your storyflo dashboard uses. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, which are strong signals. The description adds that the tool returns 'deep links to the desk and dashboard', but it does not explain behavior like whether the data is cached, how fresh it is, or what happens if no book exists. With annotations covering the safety profile, the description provides minimal additional behavioral context.
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 two sentences: the first defines the return value, the second instructs when to use. Every sentence is useful and there is no redundancy or filler. This is appropriately sized and front-loaded.
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 the tool has only 2 simple parameters, 100% schema coverage, strong annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and usage hint adequately. It could mention that the output includes links (which it does) but does not need to detail return structure since there is no output schema. Minor gap: no mention of error cases (e.g., invalid token).
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% — both parameters (tenant_slug and access_token) have clear descriptions in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. Per guidelines, baseline is 3 when coverage is >80%, and the description does not improve on that.
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 explicitly states the tool provides a financial manager's book status: open calls, closed calls count, and links to desk and dashboard. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like fm_close_position or fm_open_position by specifying 'book status' rather than trade execution.
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 explicitly says 'Use this first when a manager asks what is on their book right now', giving clear context for invocation. However, it does not mention when NOT to use it or suggest alternatives among siblings, which keeps it from a 5.
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 distinct purposes, but there is overlap between `get_my_private_feed`, `subscribe_topic`, and `list_subscriptions`—all return or manage feed URLs, which could confuse an agent. Otherwise, categories like publisher, fund manager, and search tools are clearly separated.
All tools use consistent snake_case with a verb_noun pattern (e.g., `get_article`, `search_articles`, `publisher_upload_audio`). Exceptions like `digest` are single-word verbs but still fit the pattern. No mixed conventions are present.
With 37 tools, the server exceeds the 25-tool threshold considered 'too many' by the rubric. While the broad scope (news, podcasting, publishing, fund management, embedding) justifies a large surface, the count still adds cognitive load and would benefit from splitting into separate servers.
The tool set covers the major domains: search, retrieval, subscriptions, publishing, fund manager operations, and embedder network. Minor gaps exist, such as the absence of an unsubscribe or delete-episode tool, but the core workflows are well-supported and agents can accomplish most tasks.