Skip to main content
Glama

Trading-agent post-mortem search ($0.01)

postmortems_search
Read-only

PAID $0.01. Curated post-mortems with agent/sentiment/timing/model/risk + citations.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "postmortems_search"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
qNo
limitNo
modelNo
api_keyNoOptional prepaid key (sk_scrapling_...) or catalog pass token (sdp_..., from pass_day/pass_month). Otherwise pay per call with x402 via _meta['x402/payment'].

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations already declare a read-only, non-open-world operation, and the description adds that calls are paid ($0.01) and return citations, which is useful behavioral context. It does not disclose result size, pagination, rate limits, or what happens with the payment/key model beyond what the api_key schema field already says.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very short and front-loads the paid requirement, with no wasted words. But it is under-specified for a four-parameter paid search API, so its concision comes at the cost of missing operational detail.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

This is a paid, multi-parameter search tool with low schema coverage and no output schema. The description does not explain query semantics, result limits, model filtering, or payment behavior enough for reliable invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 25%; only api_key is documented in the schema. The description does not explain q, limit, or model, and the facet list is not tied to the model parameter, so an agent gets little help choosing or formatting inputs.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description says it returns "curated post-mortems" and lists facets (agent/sentiment/timing/model/risk) plus citations, which conveys the resource. However, it never states the verb or scope of the operation, so the agent must infer "search" from the tool name rather than the description.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no conditions under which the search is appropriate. The only usage-adjacent detail is the $0.01 price, which does not help select the tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.