Mood TRANSITIONS today — instruments whose Market Mood label flipped in the last 24h (e.g. Bullish → Neutral). This is NOT price movers; mood changes only. If today is quiet, an empty result is normal — try list_market_moods with only_with_changes for the latest cycle of transitions across recent days.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mood | No | Only show changes that landed on this mood | |
| limit | No | ||
| asset_type | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value beyond these by noting that 'an empty result is normal' on quiet days and clarifying the scope as 'last 24h'. It doesn't contradict annotations, and the added behavioral context is useful, though it doesn't detail output shape or pagination.
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 and every phrase earns its place: first states the core behavior, then explicitly excludes price movers and provides an alternative workflow. It is front-loaded with the key definition and contains no redundant or filler text.
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's moderate complexity, the description covers the main purpose, the time scope, the 'not price movers' nuance, and the empty-result expectation. However, with no output schema and incomplete parameter descriptions, the agent must infer some behaviors (e.g., how `limit` and `asset_type` affect results) from names alone. The description is strong but 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?
Schema description coverage is only 33% — only the `mood` parameter has a description. The tool description does not mention `mood`, `limit`, or `asset_type` at all, so it fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions. While parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, an agent still lacks explicit semantics for `limit` and `asset_type`.
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 function: 'Mood TRANSITIONS today — instruments whose Market Mood label flipped in the last 24h (e.g. Bullish → Neutral).' It uses a specific verb ('get' implied by name, 'flipped') and resource ('Market Mood label'), and differentiates from the sibling `list_market_moods` by scoping to today and explicitly saying 'This is NOT price movers; mood changes only.'
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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Mood TRANSITIONS today' and provides an alternative when the result is empty: 'try `list_market_moods` with `only_with_changes` for the latest cycle of transitions across recent days.' It also explicitly excludes price movers, helping an agent avoid invoking the wrong tool.
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.
