tw-market-data

Approve a pending action

approve_action

Idempotent

Record a HUMAN's approval of a proposed action.

    This writes an audit record naming who approved what, and when. It does NOT execute the
    action: TWMD has no order or funds path, by design. Execution, if any, happens elsewhere and
    is performed by a person.

    Args:
        action_id: from `list_pending_actions` or a report's `proposed_actions`.
        approver: who is approving. Required — an unattributed approval is not an approval.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`approver`	Yes
`action_id`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`hint`	No
`error`	No
`reason`	No
`status`	No
`blocked`	No
`executed`	No
`action_id`	No
`approved_at`	No
`approved_by`	No
`execution_note`	No
`not_investment_advice`	No

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description reveals that the tool only writes an audit record, has no order or funds path, and that execution happens elsewhere by a person. This is meaningful behavioral context that annotations alone do not provide.

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 compact and front-loads the core purpose. The explanation about no order/funds path is useful context, though slightly verbose, but it still earns its place by preventing misuse.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given only two simple parameters and an output schema, the description covers what the tool does, what it does not do, where parameters come from, and why the approver field is required. No essential information is missing for safe invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining that action_id comes from list_pending_actions or proposed_actions and by emphasizing that approver is required because an unattributed approval is not an approval.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description states a specific action ('Record a HUMAN's approval of a proposed action') and clearly distinguishes approval from execution: it 'does NOT execute the action.' This separates it effectively from other tools like list_pending_actions and delete_alert.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description clearly explains the intended use: recording human approval, not performing the action. It also tells the agent where action_id comes from, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or conditions for choosing a different tool.

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?