get_live_statusReturn verifiable public state: LIVE/DEMO/DEGRADED, commit, generated_at, data_as_of, 13F period and coverage.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| source | No | ||
| git_sha | No | ||
| public_state | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc. The description adds that the state is 'verifiable' and lists specific returned fields, providing moderate additional context. No contradiction with 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 with front-loaded key purpose and enumerated details. Efficient, though could benefit from minor structuring for readability.
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 and presence of an output schema (inferred), the description sufficiently covers what the tool returns. No significant gaps for a simple status query.
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?
No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter information. Baseline 4 applies.
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 states the verb 'Return' and specifies the resource 'public state' with enumerated fields (LIVE/DEMO/DEGRADED, commit, etc.), making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishing it from sibling tools.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_product_status or get_data_quality). The context signals indicate no parameters, but usage context is left unaddressed.
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.