tw-market-data

Read risk events

risk_read

Read-onlyIdempotent

事件與市場結構風險:隱含波動率、注意處置、裁罰訴訟、放空限制、因子。

    ★ ⚠️ **部位集中度與回撤不在這裡** —— 那是 `risk_assess` 的職責。重算一份會產生
      第二個答案,而兩個都帶著我們的名字。
    ★ `checked_and_clear` 是「查過而且確認沒有」(例如近一年無裁罰),和
      `cannot_see` 的「不知道」是兩回事。
    ★ 事實整理,不是投資建議、不是預測。輸出帶 `does_not_prove`。
    ★ Args:`ticker`(例如 "2330")、`as_of`(選填)。
    ★ Returns:誠實信封;事件風險 listed in `concerns`,查過確認沒有的
      listed in `checked_and_clear`。
    ★ PRECONDITIONS:自己取數;requires 一個已識別的 session。
    ★ SIDE EFFECTS:read-only,does not 寫入。

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`as_of`	No
`ticker`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds significant behavioral context beyond those: it says output is factual, not advice/prediction, and carries does_not_prove; it distinguishes checked_and_clear from cannot_see (open-world semantics); it states side effects explicitly. No contradiction with annotations.

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 dense but well-structured with bullet points and front-loaded scope. Each bullet adds distinct value (differentiation, output semantics, non-advice, args, returns, preconditions, side effects). The ★ and bold formatting is stylistic but not wasteful. It could be tighter, but nothing is redundant.

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 output schema exists (not shown), the description explains the output semantics (concerns vs checked_and_clear) and mentions does_not_prove. It states preconditions and side effects. It does not address error handling or authentication beyond 'identified session', but for a read-only risk tool it is largely complete.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only lists the parameter names and marks as_of as optional, with an example ticker. It does not explain what as_of means (e.g., date format, cutoff behavior) or how it affects results. This is minimal compensation for an undocumented 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?

The description opens with a precise scope: event and market structure risks (implied volatility, attention disposal, penalties, short selling restrictions, factors). It immediately differentiates from risk_assess by explicitly stating position concentration and drawdown are not here. The verb 'read' matches the tool name and the resource (risk events) is concrete.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It explicitly names risk_assess as the alternative for position concentration/drawdown, telling the agent which sibling to choose instead. It also clarifies the meaning of checked_and_clear vs cannot_see, which guides interpretation. Preconditions (identified session, self-fetching) are stated, and it reinforces read-only behavior.

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?