riptide_paper_recordVerified core paper equity, return, drawdown, and recent curve.
| 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": "paper_record",
+ "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 disclose readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds 'Verified' and 'core' as qualitative context, but does not explain what 'verified' means or describe any behavioral aspects like data freshness or return structure. With annotations doing the heavy lifting, this is adequate but not enriching.
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 seven words, front-loaded with the most identifying term ('Verified core paper'), and contains no filler or redundancy. Every word earns its place, and the fragment is appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters.
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 zero-parameter, read-only tool that has an output schema, the description is largely complete: it names the exact data domain and quality cache. The only gap is that it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over its siblings, but 'paper' and 'core' imply the boundary enough for a simple no-arg lookup.
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 input schema is empty with zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description need not add parameter-level detail. It instead names the output-ish content, which is appropriate.
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 identifies a specific resource — paper trading metrics — with content scope ('equity, return, drawdown, and recent curve') and a quality qualifier ('Verified'). It differentiates from siblings by explicitly saying 'paper' versus crypto, allocation, or event markets. However, it lacks a verb like 'get' or 'retrieve', so it reads as a label rather than a full action statement.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus riptide_crypto_record, riptide_allocation, or riptide_overview. The word 'paper' implies a distinction, but no explicit condition or alternative is stated, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.
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.