financial_agent
full financial agent Expected Runtime: ~60s.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| payload | Yes |
Output Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Agent Router
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- Added
TDQS
D1.7/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The only behavioral cue offered is 'Expected Runtime: ~60s', which is a useful operational hint, but nothing is said about side effects, state changes, input/output format, or how the agent behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief, but this is under-specification rather than efficient conciseness. The runtime note is cleanly stated, but there is no substantive content to structure; the text fails to earn its place with useful information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For an agent tool with no annotations, no parameter explanation, unknown output behavior, and 23 competing sibling agents, this description is severely inadequate. An agent cannot safely or correctly invoke it based on this definition alone.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The single parameter is suggestively named 'financial agent' (implying a free-text prompt), but the description offers no guidance on what should be passed, its format, or constraints. The name carries the meaning on its own.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'full financial agent' communicates only the domain (financial) and that it is an agent, but not what the agent actually does—analysis, trading, accounting, advisory, or otherwise. It names nothing more specific than its own title, so it barely rises above a tautology.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance whatsoever about when to use this tool versus the 23 sibling agents (researchagent, scientificresearchagent, exploitagent, etc.). An agent has no way to decide whether financial_agent is the right choice for a given financial task.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
C2.7/5.0
Disambiguation3/5
Several tools overlap in purpose, particularly the research/analysis agents (constructivecritic, firstprinciplesanalyst, scientificresearchagent, researchagent) and the three reasoningdelegation agents, which differ only by effort level. Some tools like 'exploitagent' and 'testagent' have vague descriptions that don't clarify distinct roles. However, many tools are clearly distinct (e.g., campbuddy vs. smart_fridge___nutrition), and the core router tools (discover_agents, a2a_call_agent, wait_for_task) are well-defined.
Naming Consistency2/5
Naming is inconsistent: some tools use snake_case (a2a_call_agent, discover_agents, wait_for_task) while most others are camelCase or concatenated lowercase (browsernavigationagent, campbuddy, reasoningdelegationhigh). There's also odd naming like 'smart_fridge___nutrition' with triple underscore, and simple names like 'testagent' and 'exploitagent'. No consistent convention exists across the set.
Tool Count4/5
With 24 tools, this is near the upper limit but still reasonable for an agent router that hosts many pre-defined specialized agents. The core router functions (discover, call, wait) are supplemented by a diverse set of agent tools. It's borderline heavy but each tool represents a distinct agent or action, so it's acceptable.
Completeness4/5
The router functionality is well-covered: discovery (discover_agents), synchronous calling (a2a_call_agent), asynchronous handling (wait_for_task), and skill lookup (search_skills/get_skill) for extension. Missing are explicit cancellation or task management tools, but core workflows are supported. The presence of domain-specific agents (campbuddy, silpo_home_restaurant) doesn't detract from router completeness.