DRILL-DOWN ONLY — never a first-round call and never alongside tengu_v3_news_summary (it already includes recent stories). Raw newswire headlines for one ticker over a lookback window (minutes param, default 60; 60s TTL) for when the summary's stories are insufficient or you need a tighter time window.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ticker | No | ||
| minutes | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden and adds valuable behavioral details: the tool has a 60s TTL, uses a minutes parameter defaulting to 60, and is meant only as a drill-down. It doesn't cover rate limits or output format, but for a read-only news fetch the disclosed constraints are sufficient.
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 a single dense sentence that front-loads the critical warning 'DRILL-DOWN ONLY' and packs purpose, usage, parameters, default, and TTL without waste. Every clause earns its place.
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?
Despite having no output schema and only two simple parameters, the description fully covers what the tool does, when to use it, how to use it (drill-down only), and operational specifics (TTL, default). It is complete for the tool's complexity level.
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 compensates by explaining that 'one ticker' is the subject and 'minutes param' is a lookback window with a default of 60. It doesn't restate min/max (already in schema) and adds contextual meaning to both parameters.
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 'Raw newswire headlines for one ticker over a lookback window', which is a specific verb+resource. It also distinguishes itself by explicitly warning 'DRILL-DOWN ONLY — never a first-round call' and names the sibling tengu_v3_news_summary, so it is not confused with similar tools.
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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('when the summary's stories are insufficient or you need a tighter time window') and when not to ('never a first-round call and never alongside tengu_v3_news_summary'). This is exceptional guidance with a named alternative.
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.
