tw-market-data

Agent activity log

agent_activity

Read-onlyIdempotent

What YOUR agents have actually done, from the durable audit trail.

    Every resident agent records what it did and ON WHAT BASIS — the rule and the two closes
    behind an alert, the coverage and limits behind a risk finding, the run_id and declared trial
    count behind a factor verdict. This is that trail, and it survives deploys.

    Reports which agents have recorded NOTHING (`coverage.missing`), because "the monitor has
    been quiet" and "the monitor is not running" look identical from the records alone and only
    one of them means your alerts work.

    Args:
        limit: how many records to return, newest first (max 200).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`hint`	No
`count`	No
`error`	No
`reason`	No
`blocked`	No
`records`	No
`coverage`	No
`not_investment_advice`	No

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare this as read-only and idempotent, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: the trail survives deploys, includes the reasoning basis, and reports coverage.missing. It also clarifies the limit is newest-first with a max of 200, going beyond the schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is moderately concise and well-structured, with the core purpose front-loaded and a clear Args section. Some promotional phrasing and illustrative detail could be trimmed, but each part contributes useful context about the audit trail's value and interpretation.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has an output schema and only one simple parameter, the description is nearly complete: it explains what the log contains, durability, missing-record reporting, and parameter behavior. It does not describe the output shape in prose, but the output schema already covers that.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden for the single parameter. It clearly defines limit as 'how many records to return, newest first (max 200)', adding both ordering semantics and a maximum value that the schema does not provide.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool returns a durable audit trail of what resident agents have actually done, with specific examples of the basis behind actions. It identifies the resource and scope well, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling list tools like list_alerts or risk_read.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description conveys when this tool is relevant: when you need to inspect the audit trail, including detecting agents that recorded nothing. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of a sibling, nor does it mention alternatives or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All tw-market-data tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

The tools are largely distinct: querying, searching, backtesting, risk reads, alerts, memory, and audit functions each have clear homes. A few adjacent pairs (risk_read vs risk_assess, company_health_check vs positioning_read) could be confused, but the descriptions draw explicit boundaries.

Naming Consistency3/5

There are strong consistent clusters like list_*, get_*, run_*, and memory_*, but the *_read suffix alternates with noun-first names like company_health_check, and bare-verb tools like ask, calendar, chart, and screen break the pattern. The naming is readable but not uniform.

Tool Count2/5

Forty tools is well past the 25+ threshold and makes the surface heavy for an agent to navigate, even though the breadth reflects a genuinely wide platform. Several clusters could plausibly be consolidated without losing capability.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers the main lifecycle well: discovery, point-in-time querying, filings search and full text, backtesting, research, risk assessment, alerts, memory, approvals, and provenance verification. Minor gaps exist—no strategy management tools, no memory deletion, no bulk export—but agents can work around them.

Resources

Need Help?