Latest ML ensemble prediction for one ticker: blended_score, conviction, decile rank, and per-voter sub-scores. Call this when the user asks 'what does the model think of X' or wants a quantitative score to weigh against fundamentals.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ticker | Yes | Path parameter 'ticker' (required). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states what is returned and that it is 'latest,' but gives no details about side effects, permissions, rate limits, error conditions, or data freshness. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation support.
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?
The description is two concise sentences. The first states the tool's function and key outputs; the second gives usage context. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.
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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential components: what it does, what it returns, and when to use it. It lacks a deeper explanation of the output semantics (e.g., what conviction or decile rank mean) and does not clarify how it differs from numerous similar sibling tools, but it is sufficiently complete for simple lookup.
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 has 100% coverage for the ticker parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any meaning beyond restating 'ticker' (e.g., no format examples or constraints), so it neither enriches nor detracts from the schema. Thus, it stays at the baseline.
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 returns the latest ML ensemble prediction for a single ticker, naming concrete outputs (blended_score, conviction, decile rank, per-voter sub-scores). This makes the purpose unambiguous, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like tengu_copilot_score_ticker or tengu_v3_intel_ml_prediction, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
The description provides explicit trigger phrases ('what does the model think of X') and a clear use case (quantitative score to weigh against fundamentals). However, it does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it misses the full 'when/when-not/alternatives' guidance required for a 5.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
