Gemral Edge

Sensitivity Matrix & Market Impact Preview

get_event_impact_preview

Pre-computed sensitivity matrix and historical precedent reaction ranges for an upcoming catalyst. Returns quantitative scenario outcomes (consensus expectations vs modeled deviation).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_event_impact_preview"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`slug`	No	Event canonical slug, e.g. us-cpi-inflation-september-2026
`event_id`	No	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

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations only declare the operational envelope (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false); they say nothing about what the matrix contains, how fresh it is, whether a preview requires special access, or how costly it is to compute. The description adds that outputs are quantitative consensus-vs-deviation scenarios, but that is return content already carried by the output schema, leaving behavioral context thin.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core resource (sensitivity matrix) and followed by the output characterization. No filler or repetition of the title.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Because an output schema exists, return-shape explanation is not needed, but the description still omits the key operational facts for this tool: how to identify the target event when no parameter is required, and why to choose this preview over get_event_expected_impact. Against a dense sibling set, that leaves an agent guessing at invocation.

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 100% and both parameters (slug, event_id) carry examples in the schema, so the description is not obliged to restate them. It adds no guidance on the fact that zero parameters are marked required — i.e., that a slug or event_id must effectively be supplied and which takes precedence if both are given.

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 artifact set — a pre-computed sensitivity matrix plus historical precedent reaction ranges — for a defined object (an upcoming catalyst), and adds that it returns quantitative scenario outcomes. That is far more specific than the name alone. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings with overlapping intent such as get_event_expected_impact, get_precursor_signals, or get_signal_historical_outcomes.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no statement of when to call this versus the very similar get_event_expected_impact, nor whether it should be paired with get_upcoming_catalysts to discover a slug/id first. 'Upcoming catalyst' is the only implied condition. No exclusions or alternatives are offered.

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.