SSE stream of live 1-minute OHLCV bars for EVERY US-listed ticker (no subscribe step needed — the all-ticker feed is always on). Each frame closes one 1-minute candle ~1s after the venue closes it: open/high/low/close/volume/vwap + bar_period_s=60. The live-candle feed for charting; quiet outside ~04:00-20:00 ET, which is correct. For chart HISTORY use REST aggregates, not a stream.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbols | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden and does it well: it discloses SSE transport, all-ticker coverage, no subscription step, candle closing timing (~1s after venue close), included fields, bar_period_s=60, and the expected quiet period outside 04:00-20:00 ET, even explaining that quiet is correct.
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?
Three tightly written sentences: the first states the core purpose and key behavior, the second details frame contents and timing, the third gives usage context and an explicit alternative for history. No wasted words; all information is high-value.
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 description covers the return frame fields, timing, coverage, quiet hours, and the history alternative. The only notable gap is the unexplained 'symbols' parameter, which prevents a perfect score. Absent an output schema, the description still adequately explains what the stream emits.
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 one optional 'symbols' parameter with 0% coverage in the description. The description never explains what 'symbols' does, whether it filters the all-ticker feed, or if it's needed at all. The phrase 'no subscribe step needed' hints the parameter may be optional, but it doesn't define its meaning or format, so the description fails to compensate for the missing schema description.
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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'SSE stream of live 1-minute OHLCV bars for EVERY US-listed ticker'. It clearly states what the tool provides and distinguishes it from likely sibling streaming tools like quotes or ticks by emphasizing the 1-minute candle format, all-ticker feed, and no-subscribe behavior.
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 frames this as 'The live-candle feed for charting' and instructs to 'use REST aggregates' for history, which gives a clear when-to-use and an alternative. However, it does not explicitly contrast with other live streams (e.g., quotes, ticks), so it stops short of full alternative enumeration.
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.
