Aggregate gamma exposure (GEX) and delta exposure for one ticker from the options-flow feed. Call this when the user asks about dealer positioning or gamma levels, or whether options exposure could dampen or amplify moves in a name; pair with tengu_v3_intel_max_pain for expiry pin levels.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ticker | Yes | Path parameter 'ticker' (required). | |
| freshness | No | off |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the source ('options-flow feed') and single-ticker scope; it does not mention rate limits, latency, data freshness, read-only nature, or potential errors. This is a significant gap for an unannotated tool.
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 sentences with the core action front-loaded. It wastes no words and combines the primary function with a practical usage note. It is concise and well-structured for quick parsing.
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 explains the tool's purpose and when to call it, but given there is no output schema and no annotations, it should also clarify what 'aggregate' exposure entails and how the `freshness` parameter behaves. It is minimally viable but leaves some operational gaps.
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 50%: only `ticker` has a description, and `freshness` is left undefined despite its enum values (off/live/strict). The description only reinforces `ticker` by saying 'for one ticker' but offers no explanation of the `freshness` parameter, leaving its meaning and implications unclear.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Aggregate gamma exposure (GEX) and delta exposure for one ticker from the options-flow feed.' This clearly states what the tool does and its scope (single ticker), distinguishing it from broader or historical tools. Mentioning the pairing with tengu_v3_intel_max_pain further situates it among siblings.
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 when-to-use guidance: 'Call this when the user asks about dealer positioning or gamma levels, or whether options exposure could dampen or amplify moves in a name.' It also directs pairing with tengu_v3_intel_max_pain for expiry pin levels, which is a clear usage instruction beyond mere semantics.
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.
