Did Talon catch every coin that went under $25k to $500k+, and every $100k–$200k sit that later printed millions? Locked fixtures fail the build if a printer is missed. Last-3-days is the live FOMO book through the same flag.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose that the tool can fail a build when a 'printer' is missed and that it can operate on a live 3-day book, which is meaningful. However, key behaviors remain undefined: what 'printer' means, what the tool returns, and what 'the same flag' refers to.
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 short, but its brevity comes at the expense of clarity. Sentences rely on domain jargon and rhetorical phrasing that obscure meaning, so they do not 'earn their place' as efficient communication for an AI agent.
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?
Although there are no parameters and invocation is trivial, the tool's behavior and outputs are under-specified. An agent cannot confidently predict what talon_eval does with the 'locked fixtures' or the 'live FOMO book', nor what success/failure looks like beyond a cryptic build failure.
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 has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. The baseline of 4 for parameter-less tools applies, and the description does not introduce confusing parameter-related claims.
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 indicates the tool evaluates whether Talon caught certain high-performing coins, covering historical fixtures and a live 3-day FOMO book. However, the purpose is phrased as rhetorical questions and jargon ('printed millions', 'FOMO book', 'flag') rather than a direct statement like 'verifies coverage'. It is not clearly differentiated from the many talon_* siblings.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus any sibling. The description implies it is a regression/coverage checker ('Locked fixtures fail the build'), but it never states conditions, alternatives, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage from cryptic context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.