Rolling factor betas (Fama-French 5 + momentum) for one stock: beta_mkt/smb/hml/rmw/cma/umd with alpha, idiosyncratic/total volatility and regression R², plus the monthly history of those loadings. Call it to know what factor bets a position actually carries before hedging or sizing it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| ticker | Yes | Path parameter 'ticker' (required). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the analytical nature, the rolling/monthly time-series behavior, and the exact metrics returned, making clear this is a read-only query. It does not explicitly state safety, but the language strongly implies no side effects.
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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the output specification and ending with a practical use case. Every word earns its place; 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?
The description covers the output content and a compelling use case, and it does not have an output schema to rely on. It is mostly complete, but it leaves some ambiguity around the 'limit' parameter and the rolling window length, which would help full invocation confidence.
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 description clarifies that 'ticker' refers to a single stock, but it does not explain the 'limit' parameter beyond its schema default and range. With 50% schema coverage, the description only partially compensates; the monthly-history phrase hints at limit's role but does not make it explicit.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Rolling factor betas (Fama-French 5 + momentum) for one stock' and lists exact output components (beta_mkt/smb/hml/rmw/cma/umd, alpha, volatilities, R², monthly history). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling factor tools by focusing on rolling betas and monthly loadings.
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 an explicit context: 'Call it to know what factor bets a position actually carries before hedging or sizing it.' However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it lacks the full when/when-not/alternatives guidance.
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.
