get_product_statusReturn go-to-market readiness, sellable boundaries, validation status and blocked full-quant artifact.
| 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 provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, fully disclosing safety and behavior. The description adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., no mention of rate limits, authentication, or side effects). With annotations doing the work, a 3 is appropriate.
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, front-loaded with 'Return', no fluff. Every word adds value.
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?
With an output schema present, the description need not detail return values, but it lists key components helpfully. No mention of error cases or prerequisites, but for a parameterless read-only tool, this is nearly sufficient.
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?
There are zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100% by definition. The description adds value by listing the specific data returned (e.g., 'go-to-market readiness, sellable boundaries'), enriching the meaning beyond the empty schema.
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 tool returns 'go-to-market readiness, sellable boundaries, validation status and blocked full-quant artifact' using the verb 'Return'. This is specific to product status and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_live_status or get_research_readiness.
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 vs siblings. Implicitly it is for product status queries, but no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned. Given the sibling list includes many get_* tools, more context would help.
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.