Skip to main content
Glama

get_moat_score

Cached competitive-advantage (moat) score from 1 to 5 for one ticker. Not counted in the Score VI quota.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "symbol": "<symbol>"
    },
    "name": "get_moat_score"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
symbolYesStock ticker (e.g. AAPL)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / symbol / description
      Previous value: -"Ticker boursier (ex: AAPL)"New value: +"Stock ticker (e.g. AAPL)"
  2. First observed

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the value is cached (implying possible staleness) and that it is exempt from the Score VI quota, but says nothing about permissions, behavior on an unknown ticker, or whether cached results refresh.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two short sentences, both front-loaded and free of filler: the core purpose leads and the secondary quota caveat follows. Nothing is padded or 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?

For a single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, value range, and caching behavior adequately. It could add a note on staleness windows or missing-ticker handling, but nothing essential to calling it correctly is absent.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100% (symbol is documented with an example), so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description adds no format, casing, or exchange-suffix detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('competitive-advantage (moat) score') plus the value domain (1 to 5) and scope (one ticker), which clearly separates it from siblings like get_intrinsic_value or get_valuation_metrics. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the closely parallel get_management_score, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or named alternatives are given. The only contextual remark, 'Not counted in the Score VI quota,' describes cost/accounting rather than when an agent should choose this tool over another scoring tool.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources