DRILL-DOWN ONLY — never alongside tengu_v3_news_summary (it already includes trending status). The newswire's noise-filtered top stories for a ticker, for when you specifically need the trending ranking on its own.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ticker | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits such as read-only status, output details, or potential side effects. It only mentions 'noise-filtered' and 'top stories' but does not explicitly state that this is a safe read operation, whether it returns ranking data, or any edge-case behavior. This leaves the agent uncertain about expected behavior.
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 punchy sentences, front-loaded with the critical usage warning 'DRILL-DOWN ONLY'. Every word adds value, with no repetition of schema information. It is concise and well-structured.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential context: purpose, usage boundaries, and the nature of returned data. The main gap is the lack of explicit output format or ticker requiredness, but these are minor for a simple retrieval tool.
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 schema has zero description coverage for the single 'ticker' parameter, and the description only says 'for a ticker' without explaining format, requiredness, or semantics. Given the schema reports required parameters as 0, the description's implication that a ticker is needed is contradictory and unhelpful. The parameter meaning is not sufficiently clarified.
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 retrieves noise-filtered top stories with trending ranking for a specific ticker. It explicitly distinguishes itself from tengu_v3_news_summary by noting this is a drill-down tool for when trending status is needed alone, so the purpose is unambiguous.
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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('when you specifically need the trending ranking on its own') and a clear when-not-to-use warning ('never alongside tengu_v3_news_summary'). It does not mention alternative sibling tools beyond summary, so it falls slightly short of the full 'alternatives' criterion.
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.
