Skip to main content
Glama

tengu-firm

by io.github.Hlobo-dev

tengu_v3_reference_coverage

CROSSWALK COVERAGE — what the reference dataset actually contains, measured live and stated as numbers rather than adjectives: securities and issuers carried and how many are still active, identifier bindings held and how many are RETIRED, the percentage of securities carrying each rung, how many issuers bridge into the private-company graph and how those links break down by confidence grade, and how many dated issuer change events are on file. It also NAMES the rungs this crosswalk deliberately does not serve and why — a missing rung is a stated fact here, not a silent gap a customer discovers after integrating. Every source is listed with its own as-of date, its age in days and whether that age is beyond its expected refresh cadence, so a vintage component can never pass as current. Live-measured 2026-08-02: 77,313 securities (25,512 active), 58,179 issuers, 969,333 identifier bindings (209,715 current / 759,618 retired) across 9 indexed rungs, 26,189 issuers (45.0%) linked to the private graph. Call it before you buy, or before you build against it.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses that numbers are live-measured, includes an as-of timestamp (2026-08-02), reports source ages and refresh cadence, and explicitly promises that missing rungs are stated rather than hidden. This is rich behavioral context beyond a simple read-only hint.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with its core purpose and is densely packed with useful statistics and disclosures. It is not redundant, but it is a long single paragraph that could be broken into shorter sentences for readability, so it is not perfectly concise.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, this description is complete: it enumerates all report metrics, provides the as-of date, explains source-age monitoring, and addresses missing rungs and their handling. There are no significant gaps in what an agent needs to know before invoking it.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters; instead, it describes the content and semantics of the coverage report itself, which is sufficient.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the tool as 'CROSSWALK COVERAGE' and specifies exactly what it reports: securities and issuers counts, identifier bindings, rung coverage, private-graph links, and dated change events. It also distinguishes itself from sibling reference tools by focusing on coverage metrics and explicitly stating missing rungs, rather than lookup or batch operations.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit usage context with 'Call it before you buy, or before you build against it,' and explains that missing rungs are surfaced deliberately. However, it does not name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it lacks full when-not/alternative guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All tengu-firm toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

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.

Naming Consistency2/5

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.

Tool Count1/5

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.

Completeness4/5

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.

Resources