get_mag_pulseCloselook’s Mag Pulse: the daily board on the hyperscaler cohort — the Mag names with 1d/1w/1m/1y changes by cohort, the benchmarks (QQQ, SPY, SOXX, XLK, IGV, MAGS), the MAGS trendline read and the ORCL torque. Mirrors closelook.net/lab/mag-pulse/. Daily 22:30 UTC.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnly and non-destructive behavior. The description adds behaviorally relevant details beyond the annotations: the data is a daily scheduled board, updated at 22:30 UTC, and mirrors a known closelook.net URL. It does not need to warn about side effects because the annotations already declare none.
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 core content is packed into one readable sentence plus a short cadence note. Every clause conveys a useful reporting element, but the phrasing borders on promotional and repeats the idea of 'daily', so it is slightly less crisp than a minimal API-style description.
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?
For a zero-parameter read-only tool, the description gives enough orientation: what the board contains, the benchmark universe, the source URL, and the update cadence. It does not fully define the shorthand like 'Mag names' or 'ORCL torque', but those are domain terms and the external mirror provides additional context.
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 tool has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage applies trivially, so there is nothing for the description to explain. The baseline for a parameter-less tool applies, and the description contains no confusing parametric 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 identifies Mag Pulse as a specific daily board and lists its exact contents: hyperscaler cohort names, 1d/1w/1m/1y changes, benchmark tickers, MAGS trendline, and ORCL torque. This materially differentiates it from siblings like get_index_snapshot, get_tech_board, and get_wire.
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?
The description clearly implies when to use it: when an agent or user wants the Mag Pulse hyperscaler daily board, not a different market view. It also provides operational context with the daily 22:30 UTC cadence, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use.
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 map cleanly to a distinct Closelook surface — indices, macro boards, rankings, research, tape, wires. There are a few near-neighbor pairs like get_df_ranking vs get_ranking and get_market_instrument vs get_stock_snapshot, but the detailed descriptions resolve most potential misselection.
Every tool follows a clear imperative verb + noun pattern — get_, define_term, compare_indices, search_closelook — with consistent snake_case and essentially all resource-oriented nouns. The naming is predictable and easy to navigate.
25 tools is on the heavy side, above the typical well-scoped range, but each endpoint maps to a meaningful product area of Closelook's public site. The count is justified by the breadth of a financial intelligence service, though it could have been trimmed slightly.
The tool surface covers the major Closelook workflows: indices, rankings, macro monitors, stock-level data, earnings, wires, research search, and portfolio snapshots. For a read-only intelligence server there are no obvious dead ends — depth and background material is paired with lookups and daily updates.