MOVER-EXPLANATION ONLY — for 'why is X moving / what's driving X right now?' questions; never for generic 'latest news on X' (that is tengu_v3_news_summary). Newswire 'Why It's Moving' channel: short explainers for stocks making notable intraday moves. 60s cache.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| tickers | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions the 60s cache and short explainer format, which are useful. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it discuss rate limits or content structure beyond being 'short'.
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 extremely concise, packing the core purpose, exclusions, and cache behavior into two sentences. The 'MOVER-EXPLANATION ONLY' label front-loads the intent, and every phrase adds value with no 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 tool is simple but the description still leaves critical gaps. Without output schema or annotations, an agent does not know the response structure or how to construct the 'body' parameter. It also lacks clarity on whether 'tickers' accepts a single value or a list. The description handles purpose and guidance well but falls short on operational details.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not explain what 'body', 'limit', or 'tickers' mean or their expected formats. While the tool's purpose implies tickers are relevant, there is no concrete parameter guidance, leaving the agent to guess.
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 explicitly states the tool is for 'why is X moving / what's driving X right now?' questions and clearly differentiates itself from tengu_v3_news_summary by saying 'never for generic latest news on X'. It also identifies the specific resource as the Newswire 'Why It's Moving' channel.
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 ('why is X moving') and when-not-to-use ('never for generic latest news on X') guidance, and even names the alternative tool (tengu_v3_news_summary). This is exactly the level of direction an agent needs.
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.
