Skip to main content
Glama

crashtestyourstrategy

by io.github.fnobbe

Get one investment thesis (full case study)

get_investment_thesis
Read-onlyIdempotent

Return the complete thesis for slug: the economic framework (pillars with [E]/[M]/[K] evidence grades, falsifiers and a deep-dive), the rule-based portfolio (asset blocks × conservative/balanced/offensive weights + sizing rationale), and the stress evidence (per-tier backtest, per-regime median drawdown, real historical episodes, pre-registered claim verdicts, and the hedge hold/break behaviour). This is the 'instant portfolio with all tested attributes'. Discover slugs with list_investment_theses(). Descriptive, not advisory — the agent decides suitability.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
slugYesThesis slug — discover valid values via list_investment_theses().

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context by detailing the exact contents of the return and emphasizing that the tool is 'descriptive, not advisory,' which helps the agent understand how to interpret the output. No contradictions with annotations.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is information-dense but well-structured, front-loading the core action and then enumerating the return contents. The final sentences provide usage guidance and a concise nickname. It is slightly long but every sentence contributes meaning.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the tool's complexity, the description comprehensively covers what the tool returns, how to get a slug, and how to interpret the results (descriptive vs advisory). With an output schema present, the description need not detail return value types, making this quite complete.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'slug' with guidance to use list_investment_theses(). The description reinforces this and adds context about the output but does not offer additional parameter-level semantics beyond the schema.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool returns the complete thesis for a given slug, enumerating the economic framework, portfolio construction, and stress evidence. It explicitly distinguishes itself from list_investment_theses (discovery) and describes itself as the 'instant portfolio with all tested attributes'.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides a clear usage context: use this tool to retrieve a full case study for a known slug, and discover valid slugs via list_investment_theses(). It also clarifies that the output is descriptive and not advisory, leaving suitability to the agent. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternatives.

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

All crashtestyourstrategy toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target distinct resources/actions (regime introspection vs. portfolio stress vs. thesis management), but a few names like run_stress_test vs. portfolio_stress_test could cause confusion. Descriptions help clarify boundaries, but there is enough overlap to mark one point off.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are mostly snake_case but mix verb_noun (get_dossier, run_stress_test) with noun phrases (factor_decomposition, market_regime_map). The verb style is inconsistent (get/list/run/describe/submit/challenge), though the pattern is readable. This falls between predictable and chaotic.

Tool Count4/5

16 tools is slightly above the typical 3-15 range, but the domain is broad (regime analysis, portfolio stress testing, strategy evaluation, feedback). Most tools are distinct and necessary; only a couple could be merged without loss of functionality.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers core workflows: discovering theses, stress-testing portfolios, analyzing regimes, evaluating strategy robustness, and collecting feedback. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no custom strategy builder, challenge_strategy only supports buy-and-hold), but these are explicitly noted as future work.

Resources