Premiss

Read historical or paper evidence

get_run_report

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read the status and bounded performance report for one run in the connected workspace. Returns the tested market, interval, revision, and recorded rules when verifiable. Historical plugin runs include the paired buy-and-hold baseline when completed. Paper reads require paper:read and do not start, stop, qualify, or modify a bot. Legacy runs without supported assumptions are labeled. Does not return raw market feeds.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`run_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`mode`	Yes
`error`	No
`venue`	Yes
`end_ts`	Yes
`run_id`	Yes
`status`	Yes
`symbol`	Yes
`app_url`	Yes
`last_ts`	Yes
`metrics`	Yes
`baseline`	Yes
`interval`	Yes
`revision`	Yes
`start_ts`	Yes
`assumptions`	Yes
`limitations`	Yes
`strategy_id`	Yes
`tested_rules`	Yes
`engine_version`	Yes
`strategy_version`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 12, 2026

changedOutput schema / properties / assumptions / anyOf

Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "additionalProperties": false,
-    "properties": {
-      "fee_bps": {
-        "const": 10,
-        "type": "number"
-      },
-      "initial_capital": {
-        "const": 10000,
-        "type": "number"
-      },
-      "slippage_bps": {
-        "const": 1,
-        "type": "number"
-      },
-      "version": {
-        "const": 1,
-        "type": "number"
-      }
-    },
-    "required": [
-      "version",
-      "initial_capital",
-      "fee_bps",
-      "slippage_bps"
-    ],
-    "type": "object"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "anyOf": [
+      {
+        "additionalProperties": false,
+        "properties": {
+          "fee_bps": {
+            "const": 10,
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "initial_capital": {
+            "const": 10000,
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "slippage_bps": {
+            "const": 1,
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "version": {
+            "const": 1,
+            "type": "number"
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "version",
+          "initial_capital",
+          "fee_bps",
+          "slippage_bps"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      {
+        "additionalProperties": false,
+        "properties": {
+          "fee_bps": {
+            "maximum": 1000,
+            "minimum": 0,
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "initial_capital": {
+            "const": 10000,
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "slippage_bps": {
+            "maximum": 1000,
+            "minimum": 0,
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "version": {
+            "const": 2,
+            "type": "number"
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "version",
+          "initial_capital",
+          "fee_bps",
+          "slippage_bps"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      }
+    ]
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]

First observedOct 3, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds real substance on top: the paper:read permission requirement, that legacy runs without supported assumptions are labeled, that historical plugin runs include a paired buy-and-hold baseline, and what is deliberately not returned (raw market feeds).

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Front-loaded with the core action, then layered with progressively finer qualifications (returned fields, baseline, auth, exclusions). Every sentence carries distinct information; nothing is restated from the annotations or schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be enumerated, yet the description still summarizes the payload shape. Auth requirements, run-type handling, and negative scope are all covered, leaving nothing essential for a correct call missing.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% for the single run_id parameter, so the description carries the burden. It only implies that run_id refers to 'one run in the connected workspace' and never clarifies the identifier's form or whether it spans plugin, paper, and legacy runs, which is a real gap given the run-type distinctions it draws elsewhere.

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

Purpose4/5

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

It states a specific verb and resource ('Read the status and bounded performance report for one run') and draws a scope boundary against raw feeds. It never names the sibling it is closest to (get_run_data), so an agent must infer the split from the 'bounded' vs. raw-feed wording rather than being told explicitly.

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?

Usage context is clear: read-only inspection of a completed run, with historical plugin vs. paper reads distinguished, and explicit exclusions ('do not start, stop, qualify, or modify a bot'). No alternative tool is named for cases where the agent wants raw data or a different run view, so the routing is implied rather than stated.

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

All Premiss tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Shareable, User-Owned Context BackendPeople, applications, and agents read, write, and coordinate together in one context lake. Reach it over MCP, a CLI, a Python SDK, or REST.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?