fm_book_statusA signalflo fund manager's own book: which calls are open, how many have closed, and the deep links to the desk and dashboard. Use this first when a manager asks what is on their book right now.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tenant_slug | Yes | Your desk slug on storyflo. | |
| access_token | Yes | Your access token — the same one your storyflo dashboard uses. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so agent knows it's safe. The description adds that it returns open/closed counts and deep links, which is useful but not extensive. No contradiction with annotations. Does not elaborate on rate limits or error conditions, but that is acceptable given annotation coverage.
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?
Two sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: first defines the tool's output, second gives usage guidance. No redundant words, essential information front-loaded.
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?
Tool has no output schema, but the description summarizes the return data (open calls, closed counts, deep links). Given the low complexity (2 simple params, no nested objects), this is sufficient for an agent to decide to invoke it. Could optionally mention that results are for the authenticated user only, but not required.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides. It describes the overall output but not how to supply tenant_slug or access_token. No extra guidance is needed, but also no added value.
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 clearly states the tool provides a fund manager's own book overview: which calls are open, how many have closed, and deep links. It distinguishes itself from sibling mutation tools (e.g., fm_open_position) by being a read-only status summary, and the title 'My desk book' reinforces the resource.
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?
Explicitly says 'Use this first when a manager asks what is on their book right now,' providing clear when-to-use guidance and priority. It does not name specific alternatives for exclusion, but the sibling tools are obviously different (mutations vs. reads), so this is adequate.
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.
Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose, with detailed descriptions that prevent ambiguity. Even similar tools like search_articles, search_declassified, and search_unified target different corpora, and the publisher tools are well-separated. No overlap that would confuse an agent.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case, using clear prefixes like get_, search_, subscribe_, publisher_, fm_, digest_, etc. The naming is predictable and systematic, making it easy for an agent to infer functionality.
At 37 tools, the count is higher than the typical 3-15 range for a coherent set, but the server covers a wide domain (content retrieval, podcast management, fund manager book, embedder network, etc.). Each tool earns its place, though the set could be slightly reduced by merging some rare-use tools.
The tool surface is comprehensive for the server's purpose—search, audio, subscriptions, publisher workflows, and special features like the Divergence Index. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no explicit unsubscribe tool, no article update/delete), but they are not critical for core workflows.