60s microstructure windows per ticker from FIRM's live tape: rolling vwap, trade count/avg size, block count/vol, buy/sell imbalance, large-trade premium. Call it to separate smart-money accumulation from retail moves. Active-set coverage (~few hundred names/session; empty = uncaptured); omit date for latest, capture from 2026-05-13.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| ticker | Yes | Path parameter 'ticker' (required). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, and it does: it explains coverage limits ('Active-set coverage (~few hundred names/session; empty = uncaptured)') and date semantics ('omit date for latest, capture from 2026-05-13'). It lacks detail on return format and pagination, but the provided caveats are valuable.
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?
Two dense sentences front-load the core metrics and use case, with every clause contributing to comprehension. No fluff or repetition.
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 single-ticker data retrieval tool, the description covers purpose, computed metrics, coverage caveats, and date behavior. It omits limit semantics and explicit output shape, but the listed metrics and caveats provide sufficient context for an agent to select and invoke the 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?
Schema description coverage is only 33% (ticker only). The description adds meaning for date ('omit date for latest') and implies ticker usage, but the limit parameter is undocumented in both schema and description, leaving a gap for a parameter that controls result count.
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's function: '60s microstructure windows per ticker from FIRM's live tape' and enumerates the specific metrics (rolling vwap, trade count/avg size, block count/vol, buy/sell imbalance, large-trade premium). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like tengu_v3_tape_bars.
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?
Provides a clear use case ('Call it to separate smart-money accumulation from retail moves') and context about active-set coverage and date handling. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it.
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.
