News stories where ALL the listed tickers co-appear in the same article — a correlation feed. Call this when the user asks how two or more companies are linked in the news (deals, rivalries, shared catalysts); use ticker_news for per-ticker coverage.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| items | No | ||
| tickers | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral characteristic: the AND condition (ALL listed tickers co-appear). It also frames the use cases. However, it does not mention pagination behavior or response structure, which would provide additional transparency for a read-only feed.
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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes a usage guideline and alternative. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.
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 relatively simple, but there is no output schema and no parameter descriptions. The description covers the core use case and alternative but does not explain output format or parameter syntax. It is adequate for a minimum viable description but has clear 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate. It does not explain the format of the 'tickers' parameter (e.g., comma-separated) nor the meaning of 'page' and 'items'. The only hint is 'listed tickers' which maps to the tickers field, but it lacks necessary syntax and usage details.
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 'News stories where ALL the listed tickers co-appear in the same article — a correlation feed.' This specifies the resource (news stories), the scope (multiple tickers co-occurring), and distinguishes it from per-ticker coverage by naming the alternative tool.
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?
It explicitly says 'Call this when the user asks how two or more companies are linked in the news (deals, rivalries, shared catalysts); use ticker_news for per-ticker coverage.' This provides both a clear use case and an explicit alternative, making the selection guidance unambiguous.
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.
