tw-market-data

Get an inclusion proof

get_inclusion_proof

Read-onlyIdempotent

Prove a row was in the snapshot TWMD published — and check it yourself.

Returns the Merkle sibling path, the signed root, and the checkpoint it belongs to. It returns
the PATH rather than a yes/no on purpose: a service that answers "yes, it is included, trust me"
is the opposite of verifiable. Recompute the root from the leaf and the path; the verifier is
~30 lines and is written out in docs/VERIFIABLE_DATA.md.

★ WHAT IT PROVES: integrity (the row was not altered after publication) and origin (the root was
signed by TWMD). **It does NOT prove the numbers are correct** — if the exchange published a
wrong figure, TWMD faithfully committed to the wrong figure. Do not present a passing proof as
a correctness guarantee.

★ THREE STATUSES, and they must not be collapsed:
  ok               proof enclosed; verify it.
  not_in_snapshot  that row_key was NOT a leaf of the snapshot. A true answer, NOT a failure and
                   NOT evidence of tampering.
  no_checkpoint    no snapshot was ever built for that dataset/version.

Args:
    dataset: e.g. 'daily_price'. row_key: the dataset's LOGICAL key joined by '|',
    e.g. '2330|2026-08-14'. snapshot_version: omit for the most recent checkpoint.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`dataset`	Yes
`row_key`	Yes
`snapshot_version`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark it read-only/idempotent/non-destructive; the description goes further by disclosing the deliberate path-not-boolean response, the scope of the proof (integrity/origin, not correctness), and the existence of three statuses. However, it only enumerates two of the three statuses, leaving one possible response state undefined.

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?

Front-loaded purpose and compact section labels make the important caveats easy to find, and the prose is dense but justified for a verifiability tool. The main structural blemish is that 'THREE STATUSES' is followed by only two listed statuses.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Strong coverage of return semantics and caveats, and the output schema likely fills field-level details. The main gap is the unlisted third status and any related edge behavior, which an agent could encounter when calling the tool with an invalid or older snapshot_version.

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

Parameters4/5

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

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries parameter documentation: dataset is exemplified, row_key is defined as the logical key joined by '|' with an example, and snapshot_version is explained as omittable for the most recent checkpoint. This meaningfully compensates for the bare schema.

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?

Clearly states a specific action ('Prove a row was in the snapshot TWMD published'), names the returned artifacts (Merkle sibling path, signed root, checkpoint), and explains why a path is returned rather than a boolean. No sibling tool shares this responsibility, so it is easy to distinguish from the rest of the tool list.

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?

Explains when to use it (proving inclusion in a TWMD snapshot) and, importantly, when not to rely on it ('It does NOT prove the numbers are correct'). It also gives the verification workflow, though it does not explicitly discuss alternative sibling tools or exclusion conditions.

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?