Skip to main content
Glama

tengu-firm

by io.github.Hlobo-dev

tengu_crypto_overnight

Overnight crypto DATA book for Brain/Platform: a SLICE of GET /api/crypto/universe (the full liquid USD book, stables out, $1M floor) ordered by |24h change|. This is NOT the sitting universe — do not treat the default 25 movers as FIRM's book. Bare symbols (BTC not BTC-USD), volume, as_of, optional sentiment/whale flags. EVERY row is kind=data_context — NOT a Tengu score or prediction. FIRM has no crypto model; crypto_available stays false. Fail-closed 503 when the snapshot book is stale. Fail-closed place path: 503 bodies are ok:false with placement.fail_closed=true and X-Error-Code — do not place on a stale book. FIRM never places. Do NOT call /score, /intel/ml_prediction, or /execution/* with asset_class=crypto (those 404 crypto_model_unavailable on purpose — do not size from equity ADV). Collision tickers here are the coins, never the equity twins. Auth: X-API-Key.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
asset_classNocrypto
min_dollar_volumeNo

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the data kind (data_context, not scores/predictions), the lack of a crypto model (crypto_available stays false), fail-closed 503 behavior with placement.fail_closed=true, and ticker naming conventions (bare symbols, coin collisions). This is exceptionally transparent.

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 long but front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds critical safety or behavioral context, though there is slight redundancy around not placing (e.g., 'FIRM never places' repeated with 'do not place on a stale book'). The density is justified by the tool's complexity.

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

Completeness5/5

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

No output schema exists, but the description explains the return contents (bare symbols, volume, as_of, optional sentiment/whale flags), failure modes, and integration constraints. It also covers auth. For a data retrieval tool with many caveats, this is complete and self-contained.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains $1M floor for min_dollar_volume and default 25 movers for limit, adding meaning beyond the raw schema. asset_class is fixed to 'crypto' so no ambiguity exists. The description covers most parameter semantics effectively.

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 opening sentence clearly states the tool provides an 'Overnight crypto DATA book' as a slice of the crypto universe ordered by |24h change|. It explicitly differentiates from the 'sitting universe' and mentions it is not the firm's book, distinguishing it from sibling tools like tengu_crypto_sitting and tengu_crypto_universe.

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?

The description provides explicit when-not-to-use guidance: it is not the sitting universe, do not place orders, do not call /score, /intel/ml_prediction, or /execution/* with asset_class=crypto. These exclusions and the fail-closed behavior make appropriate usage clear.

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

All tengu-firm toolsInspect
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

C2.9/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

With 336 tools, there is substantial overlap. Over a dozen health/status tools share nearly identical 'is the system healthy?' descriptions (e.g., tengu_status, tengu_ready, tengu_ml_health, tengu_v3_system_health, tengu_v3_stream_status), and multiple single-ticker analysis (tengu_ml_predict, tengu_copilot_score_ticker, tengu_v3_intel_ml_prediction) and top-picks (tengu_copilot_top_picks, tengu_ml_top_picks, tengu_v3_trade_setups) tools have poorly defined boundaries. Agents would frequently misselect.

Naming Consistency2/5

The server mixes no-version (tengu_crypto), v2 (tengu_v2_drift), v3 (tengu_v3_intel_*), and copilot (tengu_copilot_*) families, and within families there is inconsistent verb/noun ordering (tengu_v3_research_fetch_url vs tengu_v3_news_summary). While subfamilies like tengu_v3_private_markets_* are internally consistent, the overall naming pattern is chaotic and unpredictable.

Tool Count1/5

336 tools is far beyond any reasonable tool set size, even for an all-in-one financial data platform. This extreme count creates choice paralysis, high latency in tool selection, and makes the server effectively unusable for autonomous agents. The calibration guideline marks 50+ as extreme; this is nearly 7x that threshold.

Completeness4/5

The platform covers a vast domain: equity and crypto prices, fundamentals, insider trading, options, news (including crypto and FX), private markets, streaming data, risk metrics, and execution planning. There are minor gaps (no direct multi-ticker comparison tool, no order placement), but the surface is remarkably comprehensive for an analysis-focused server.

Resources