riptide_allocationLatest allocation committed by the independent daily paper job.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | Yes | ||
| error | No | ||
| schema | Yes | ||
| product | Yes | ||
| available | No | ||
| disclaimer | Yes | ||
| real_orders | Yes | ||
| generated_at | Yes | ||
| execution_mode | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema",
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "properties": {
+ "available": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "disclaimer": {
+ "minLength": 1,
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "error": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "execution_mode": {
+ "enum": [
+ "paper_only",
+ "read_only"
+ ]
+ },
+ "generated_at": {
+ "format": "date-time",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "kind": {
+ "const": "allocation",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "product": {
+ "const": "riptide"
+ },
+ "real_orders": {
+ "const": false
+ },
+ "schema": {
+ "const": "riptide.public.v1"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "schema",
+ "product",
+ "kind",
+ "generated_at",
+ "execution_mode",
+ "real_orders",
+ "disclaimer"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond that by indicating the value is 'committed' by a 'daily paper job', signaling a settled, periodically refreshed value rather than a live or provisional one. This does not contradict the annotations.
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 a single sentence that front-loads the key concept, 'Latest allocation', and adds only the necessary qualifiers about commitment and the daily paper job. It has no filler or redundant repetition of the title.
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 parameterless, read-only tool with an output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the agent will receive and the provenance of that value. The only minor gap is that it does not explicitly position this against siblings like riptide_paper_record or riptide_overview, although the resource name and qualifiers largely cover that.
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 has zero parameters, so there is no parameter information the description needs to provide. Per the baseline rule for zero-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate because nothing is missing from the input side.
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 identifies the resource ('allocation') and its scope ('latest...committed by the independent daily paper job'), distinguishing it from crypto, event, and risk siblings. However, it is a noun phrase with no explicit retrieval verb like 'Returns' or 'Gets', so it misses the top bar.
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?
The phrase 'Latest allocation' implies this tool should be used when the most recent committed allocation is needed, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance. It does not mention prerequisites or direct the agent to any sibling tool when a different kind of data is required.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct information area: allocation, crypto record, event markets, methodology, overview, paper record, and risk evidence. The main potential confusion is that riptide_overview aggregates the latest allocation and both paper records, but the descriptions clarify that it is the summary view while the others provide focused details.
All tool names follow the same riptide_ prefix with a clear lowercase noun-phrase pattern. This is consistent and predictable across the entire set.
Seven tools is well-scoped for a public research and status server. Each tool represents a meaningful, non-redundant surface area, and the count is appropriate for the stated domain.
The set covers the core public surface: overview, allocations, paper records, crypto record, event market availability, methodology, and risk evidence. A minor gap is the lack of historical detail or raw risk event data, but that appears intentional based on the safety boundaries described.