get_sovereign_pressureCloselook’s Sovereign Pressure board: G7 ten- and thirty-year government yields aggregated equal- and debt-weighted, the 10s30s and 2s10s slopes, per-country 2Y/10Y/30Y with 1-day and 21-day changes, and the z-scored Pressure Index (high = broad, long-end-led sovereign sell-off). Mirrors closelook.net/lab/sovereign-pressure/. 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 does not need to restate that it is a safe read operation. It adds useful context beyond those annotations: the tool aggregates G7 yields in two weighting styles, includes a z-scored index with a defined interpretation, mirrors a public page, and updates daily. This gives the agent meaningful expectations about what the snapshot represents.
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 dense but front-loads the resource name and uses a structured list to convey many data components without fluff. The two-sentence layout keeps the source URL and frequency in a short fresh sentence. It is appropriately sized for a no-argument read-only dashboard, although the single long first sentence is somewhat crowded.
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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description must carry the burden of explaining what the agent will receive, and it largely does: it lists countries, maturities, weighting methods, slopes, change windows, and the Pressure Index interpretation. The main omission is a clear statement of the return structure or format beyond the board-mirroring language, but the described fields are sufficiently detailed for an agent to know what the tool provides.
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 input schema has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so there is no parameter surface requiring compensation. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter-specific burden exists. The description also adds overall context about the board's composition, even though it does not need to define inputs.
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 as the G7 Sovereign Pressure board and enumerates the exact data it provides: equal- and debt-weighted yields, slopes, per-country maturities, changes, and the z-scored Pressure Index. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_credit_stress or get_macro_regime by focusing specifically on sovereign yield pressure. It lacks an explicit operation verb such as 'returns' or 'lists', but the resource and content are unambiguous.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool versus alternatives such as get_credit_stress, get_factor_regime, or get_macro_regime. The mention that it mirrors a website and updates daily provides only implicit context, not decision rules. An agent is left to infer its applicability from the content.
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.