Raw CME futures trade prints for one root (NG, CL, ES...) and one day, from FIRM's own capture: per-print price, size, notional, block flag across contract months. Call it for real futures flow: energy tape, rolls, block prints. date mandatory; archive from 2026-05-13, mostly CME energy (NG heavy) — empty = not-yet-captured, not quiet.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | Yes | ||
| root | Yes | Path parameter 'root' (required). | |
| limit | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses valuable behavioral traits: data is from 'FIRM's own capture', archive starts 'from 2026-05-13', coverage is 'mostly CME energy (NG heavy)', and empty results mean 'not-yet-captured, not quiet'. It does not elaborate on sorting, pagination, or response formatting, but the key interpretive context is present.
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 three concise sentences, each adding distinct value: data scope, usage guidance, and archive/empty semantics. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains zero filler, making it easy to parse quickly.
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?
For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, data coverage, and parameter meaning. It lists the key fields returned (price, size, notional, block flag) and contract months, but lacks details on response structure, sorting, or how `limit` affects results. Slightly more detail would make it fully complete.
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 only 33% (root has a trivial description, date and limit have none). The description compensates by explaining root examples ('NG, CL, ES...'), stating 'date mandatory', and clarifying one-root/one-day semantics. It does not explain `limit`, but the schema provides default/min/max, and the parameter is fairly self-evident.
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 CME futures trade prints for one root (NG, CL, ES...) and one day', specifying the verb, resource, and scope. It details the data fields ('per-print price, size, notional, block flag') and distinguishes it from siblings like tape_bars or tape_futures_curve by emphasizing trade prints and flow.
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 gives explicit usage context: 'Call it for real futures flow: energy tape, rolls, block prints.' This tells the agent when to use it, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. The caveat 'empty = not-yet-captured, not quiet' prevents misinterpretation of empty results.
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.
