Backtested cross-MA strategies tuned for a specific ticker by The Balanced Investor Club — short/medium/long moving-average periods plus 1-year return, 3-year Sharpe, and trade count. Educational read on what historically lined up; never advice.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ticker | Yes | Ticker symbol |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the tool as safe, read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful context beyond that by explaining this is a historical backtest, educational in nature, and not financial advice. This provides transparent behavioral information without contradicting the annotations.
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 a single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the main subject and includes only essential details. Every word contributes value, with no redundancy or 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?
For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently outlines the data content (MA periods, return, Sharpe, trade count) and its educational purpose. It could be slightly more explicit about the output structure, but it is adequate for the tool's simplicity.
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 only parameter, 'ticker', is fully described in the schema as 'Ticker symbol' (100% coverage). The description does not add additional parameter semantics, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema already provides sufficient detail for the single parameter.
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 resource as backtested cross-MA strategies for a specific ticker, listing specific metrics (MA periods, 1-year return, 3-year Sharpe, trade count). This distinguishes it from sibling get_* tools that focus on other types of financial data, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'returns'.
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 educational review and explicitly states 'never advice', which gives some contextual guidance. However, it does not mention any alternative tools or specify when not to use this tool, leaving the comparison to siblings 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.
With 57 tools, most have distinct purposes (market data, journaling, watchlists). A few related tools (get_price_alignment vs get_crypto_price_alignment, get_market_pulse vs get_market_movers) could cause miselection, but descriptions clarify asset types and scope.
Tools predominantly use get_/list_/create_/update_/delete_ verbs with clear noun suffixes. Minor deviations like start_here, whoami, add_to_watchlist, and remove_from_watchlist break the pure verb_noun pattern, but the style is consistent and readable.
At 57 tools, the server is far beyond the well-scoped range. While the domain is broad, this many tools will overwhelm an agent's capability to select accurately, and many could be consolidated (e.g., separate financial statements).
The server covers watchlist CRUD, trading journaling, market data (fundamentals, statements, news, transcripts), analysis tools, and community features. No obvious dead ends; lifecycle coverage is thorough for the described domain.
