Fetch the real-time unified Foresea Alpha & Agent Feed, combining live prediction market edge signals, autonomous agent trades & theses, and leaderboard standings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| min_edge | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds that the feed is 'real-time' and 'unified' and lists contents, but offers no insight into ordering, caching, rate limits, error behavior, or how 'edge' is computed. This is minimal additional context beyond the tool's name and title.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence immediately identifies the action and resource, then efficiently lists the feed's components. No words are wasted, and the structure is easy to scan. Every element adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with two optional parameters and an output schema, the description adequately explains what the feed contains, but it omits crucial context about parameter usage (especially 'min_edge') and any caveats about real-time data. The presence of many sibling tools raises the need for clearer operational context, which is partially satisfied by the output schema but not by the description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description makes no mention of the 'limit' or 'min_edge' parameters. While 'limit' is intuitive and 'min_edge' hints at a threshold, the description does not clarify the semantics of 'edge' in this trading/feed context or explain how parameters affect results. The description offers no compensation for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('real-time unified Foresea Alpha & Agent Feed'), then details the feed's components (edge signals, agent trades & theses, leaderboard standings), which clearly differentiates it from siblings like foresea_market_leaderboard or foresea_edge_board. This exceeds a generic paraphrase and tells the agent exactly what the tool provides.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus siblings. There is no mention of alternatives, exclusions, or scenarios where another tool would be preferred. The description only states what the feed combines, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the tool name and sibling names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Some tools have overlapping purposes: foresea_edge_board and foresea_scan_markets both return markets ranked by model-vs-market edge, and foresea_forecast vs foresea_debate_market both provide probabilities for a question. Descriptions help differentiate (specific vs. broad, quick vs. deep) but the boundaries are not always clear.
All tools share the 'foresea_' prefix and use lowercase with underscores, which provides consistency. However, the remainder mixes verb-noun phrases (analyze_market, scan_markets) with bare nouns (orderbook, price_history) and compound nouns (market_leaderboard, polymarket_meta), creating minor stylistic inconsistency.
17 tools is slightly above the typical well-scoped range of 3-15, but the server covers a broad domain (forecasting, market analysis, data feeds, portfolio optimization, track record). A couple of tools are redundant (edge_board vs scan_markets) and could be consolidated, but overall the count is reasonable.
The tool set covers the core analytics workflow: general forecasting, specific market analysis, opportunity scanning, market data (quotes, orderbook, history, trades), portfolio allocation, and performance evaluation. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no tool for detailed market rules or user portfolio tracking), but these are likely outside the intended scope.
