Daily 5Y single-name CDS spread history: composite par spreads (raw + bps), market-implied default probability, average/implied agency rating. Call it for how default risk has trended (tengu_v3_credit is the one-call snapshot). Coverage 2005 to end-2025, 5Y tenor; tickers match the equity symbol for liquid US names (F, T, GE...).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| start | No | ||
| ticker | Yes | Path parameter 'ticker' (required). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It lists returned metrics and coverage, but does not describe output structure, pagination, or handling of missing data. It adds useful context but leaves notable behavioral aspects undisclosed.
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 carrying distinct value: first lists data contents, second provides usage, coverage, and ticker guidance. No redundancy or fluff, and it is front-loaded with the most important information.
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?
The description is sufficient for tool selection but incomplete for correct invocation. It does not specify date formats, whether start/end are inclusive, the meaning of the limit parameter, or the exact response shape. More detail would be expected given 4 parameters and no output schema.
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 only 25% (ticker only). The description mentions the default coverage range but does not explain how start/end or limit parameters behave, their format, or defaults (beyond limit's schema default). This is a significant gap for a history tool with a date range.
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 identifies the tool as a daily 5Y single-name CDS spread history, listing specific output fields (par spreads, default probability, rating). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the snapshot sibling by noting 'tengu_v3_credit is the one-call snapshot', which eliminates ambiguity.
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 gives explicit usage guidance: 'Call it for how default risk has trended' and provides the alternative snapshot tool. It also includes coverage details (2005 to end-2025, 5Y tenor) and ticker matching rules for liquid US names, which informs when the tool is applicable.
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.
