get_confluence_methodologyReturn the frozen Confluence v1 methodology contract, including proof boundary and validation requirements.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. Description adds value by noting the contract is 'frozen' (implying immutability) and lists included details (proof boundary, validation requirements), providing behavioral context beyond 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?
Single sentence is concise and front-loaded with the key action and resource. Every word adds value with no redundancy.
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?
Given zero parameters, rich annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description fully informs the agent about what the tool does and its safety profile. No missing information needed for tool selection.
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?
Tool has no parameters, so baseline score is 4. Description need not add parameter information, and schema coverage is 100% trivially.
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?
Description clearly states the tool returns the 'frozen Confluence v1 methodology contract' with specific content ('proof boundary and validation requirements'). Verb 'Return' identifies the action, and the resource is distinct from any sibling tool.
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 direct guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. However, since no sibling tool appears related to methodology, the lack of explicit guidance is not penalized heavily. Score reflects missing context like prerequisites or typical use cases.
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.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but there is potential confusion between get_confluence_signals and get_signal_history (both dealing with signals) and between get_fund and get_stock (both about holdings). Descriptions help clarify, but minor overlap remains.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., get_fund, list_funds, preview_watchlist) and use snake_case throughout, making them predictable and easy to understand.
With 13 tools, the server is well-scoped for its domain of 13F filings and research. Each tool serves a clear function, and the count is neither too sparse nor overwhelming.
The tool set covers key operations like listing funds, getting holdings, signal history, and quality warnings. However, it lacks a tool for searching tickers or funds by name, which could be a minor gap for some use cases.