Forensic audit of a backtest trade ledger ($5.00).
Impossible-fill detection against the real tape, cost-adjusted expectancy, overfitting checks, verdict + grade. trades_csv: CSV text with columns like symbol, side, entry_time, exit_time, entry_price, exit_price, qty.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| preset | No | large_cap | |
| n_trials | No | ||
| trades_csv | Yes | ||
| payment_signature | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses a $5.00 cost but lacks details on authorization needs, rate limits, or side effects. With no annotations, it partially carries the transparency burden but misses important behavioral traits.
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?
Three sentences cover purpose, capabilities, and parameter format. Could be more structured, but overall concise without redundant information.
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?
Lacks details on output format (verdict and grade), default parameter behaviors, and error handling. Given 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete for full tool understanding.
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 description adds meaning for the 'trades_csv' parameter by specifying required columns, but does not explain 'preset', 'n_trials', or 'payment_signature'. Schema coverage is 0%, so description partially compensates but is incomplete.
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's purpose as a forensic audit of a backtest trade ledger, listing specific checks like impossible-fill detection and overfitting. It distinguishes from sibling tools which focus on bar quality, execution cost, pricing, and regime analysis.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention when not to use it or provide comparisons to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
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 distinct purpose, with clear differentiation between SYGNL/47 event tiers (live, 1m, 15m, archive), subscription management, and auxiliary tools like backtesting and regime detection. No overlapping functionality.
Most tools follow a descriptive underscore pattern, with 'sygnl47_' prefix for event and subscription tools, and 'get_' for data retrieval. Some variation in verb prefixes (audit, check, estimate) but overall predictable and readable.
21 tools is slightly high but justified by the tiered data access model for SYGNL/47 events and supporting infrastructure. The count covers core functionality without being excessive.
The tool set covers the stated domain well: event monitoring at different recency, backtesting, regime detection, and subscription management. Minor gaps like historical pricing data are not central to the server's focus.