Gemral Edge

Event Expected Impact

get_event_expected_impact

Historical outcome distribution for the pattern of a specific event (median return relative to sector, win/loss rate, drawdown, within-corpus control). Returns insufficient_sample when N is below the honesty gate.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "event_id": "<event_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_event_expected_impact"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`event_id`	Yes	Event UUID

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`notice`	No	Free-tier upgrade notice; only when results are masked/delayed.
`results`	Yes	Tool result payload (read-only evidence). Shape varies by tool; scoring weights are never exposed.
`history_limit`	No	Present when the license limits history depth: earliest_allowed date, history_days and how many older items were removed.
`deprecated_fields`	No	Present only while a renamed key is still returned next to its replacement: field (old key), replacement (new key, same value), removal (ISO date after which the old key is gone).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 26, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / deprecated_fields

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Present only while a renamed key is still returned next to its replacement: field (old key), replacement (new key, same value), removal (ISO date after which the old key is gone).",
+  "items": {
+    "additionalProperties": true,
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses the return payload contents and the failure mode (insufficient_sample below a sample-size gate), which is behavior an agent can plan around. The lowest-N threshold itself is unnamed, so an agent cannot predict exactly when the gate trips. readOnlyHint=false on a 'get_' tool is worth noting, but the description neither claims nor contradicts mutation, so no annotation contradiction is raised.

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?

Two compact sentences: the payload comes first, the failure mode second. Nothing is repeated from the name or the schema, and every clause carries information about the result shape or its reliability caveat.

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?

The tool has a single fully described parameter, an output schema, and annotations, so the description only needs to add the result shape and the sample-size caveat, which it does. The undifferentiated overlap with get_event_impact_preview is the only remaining gap, and it is minor.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter, so event_id (Event UUID) is already fully documented in the input schema. The description adds only the phrase 'the pattern of a specific event', which hints at how the ID is used but gives no further format or constraint detail. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the work.

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?

The description names a specific resource (historical outcome distribution for the pattern of a given event) and enumerates what the distribution contains: median return relative to sector, win/loss rate, drawdown, within-corpus control. That is far more specific than a restatement of the name. It stops short of distinguishing itself from near neighbors such as get_event_impact_preview and get_signal_historical_outcomes, which likely overlap.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The strongest guidance is embedded in the last sentence: the tool returns insufficient_sample when N is below the honesty gate, which tells an agent when this tool will refuse. There is no explicit direction on when an agent should call this rather than get_event_impact_preview or get_signal_historical_outcomes, so the reader must infer the choice from the output list.

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

All Gemral Edge tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.