get_money_temperatureCloselook’s Money Temperature: the house money-regime monitor — eight instruments (SPY, QQQ, IWM, TLT, HYG, GLD, UUP, BTC) scored 0–100 on Position / Momentum / Volume / Volatility / Fragility, each with its technical state, plus the absorption ratio. Mirrors closelook.net/lab/temperature/. Daily.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description appropriately adds non-safety context: the daily cadence, the mirror URL, and the exact scoring dimensions. It does not fully describe response structure, but for a read-only regime snapshot it is quite transparent.
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 description is tight and front-loaded: it leads with the tool's identity, then enumerates the actual contents, then the cadence and reference. Every phrase carries meaningful information without bloating.
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 monitor, the description is complete: it tells the agent what the tool does, what data items appear, the scoring scales, the daily update rhythm, and a reference URL. There is no obvious missing need for invoking it correctly.
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, so schema coverage is perfect by default. The description adds meaning by defining what the returned temperature report contains, which is relevant even though it doesn't discuss parameters.
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 identifies the resource (house money-regime monitor) and specifies its output: eight instruments scored 0–100 on Position/Momentum/Volume/Volatility/Fragility, technical state, and the absorption ratio. It is specific enough to distinguish this from most sibling tools, though it lacks an explicit imperative verb like 'returns'.
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?
Usage context is implied: the description labels it 'the house money-regime monitor' and says it mirrors the daily lab page. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over siblings like get_macro_regime or get_factor_regime, nor any exclusions or alternatives.
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.