The boards’ own calls, locked at the 6 Oct 2026 close with a SHA-256 receipt and scored against what happened: places for cash for 1, 3 and 6 months (paid what it said, no loss), cash cows and cash machines (beat the S&P 500 fund on total return, same dates), and Edgarette’s 12-month expected-return calls (landed inside her 80% range). A test of the boards, not advice.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does not disclose whether this is a pure read, what data scope or snapshot it covers, auth needs, or rate limits. The 'not advice' disclaimer adds a small amount of context but nothing operational.
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?
It is a single dense sentence built from in-house jargon ('Edgarette's', 'cash cows and cash machines', 'places for cash') that is not front-loaded with a plain statement of purpose. It is not excessively long, but the structure forces the reader to decode rather than understand.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description must explain what the caller gets back, and it does not — only the scoring concepts are named. Field-level return semantics and the shape of the result are left entirely unspecified.
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 tool takes no parameters, so the baseline is 4. With an empty schema there is nothing to document, and the description does not need to compensate.
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 conveys that this is a scorecard of the boards' past calls scored against real outcomes, but it never states plainly what the tool returns or in what form. The stylized lead ('The boards' own calls, locked at the 6 Oct 2026 close with a SHA-256 receipt') obscures the specific verb+resource. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_cash_leaders only by inference.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no comparison to any sibling tool. 'A test of the boards, not advice' is a disclaimer rather than an instruction, leaving the agent to guess the trigger condition.
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.