Gemral Edge

Person & Management Credibility Dossier

get_management_credibility

Get comprehensive execution track record and credibility scores for a corporate management team, individual executive (CEO/CFO), or public politician (e.g. Nancy Pelosi, Donald Trump). Returns person-centric credibility dossier, STOCK Act trade telemetry or corporate tenures, legislative commitments or guidance promises, and receipts breakdown.

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_management_credibility"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ticker`	No	Company stock ticker, e.g. NVDA or TSLA
`person_slug`	No	Individual slug identifier for executive or politician (e.g. jensen-huang, nancy-pelosi, donald-trump, elon-musk)

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

B3.3/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

The description frames the tool purely as retrieval ('Get comprehensive...', 'Returns person-centric credibility dossier...'), implying a safe read, while the annotations declare readOnlyHint=false. This mismatch could mislead an agent about whether invoking the tool has side effects, and the description does nothing to reconcile it.

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 dense sentences with the core action front-loaded in 'Get comprehensive...'. It is well-structured, though terms like 'receipts breakdown' and 'STOCK Act trade telemetry' are jargon-heavy without explanation.

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

Completeness4/5

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

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not strictly required, yet the description still outlines the dossier contents effectively. The only meaningful gap is the unaddressed readOnlyHint inconsistency and the lack of sibling differentiation.

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%, so both parameters (ticker, person_slug) are already fully documented with examples. The description reinforces the company-vs-person distinction but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, warranting the baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('execution track record and credibility scores'), and enumerates the three subjects it covers (management team, individual executive, public politician) with concrete examples. An agent can immediately tell this is a person/team credibility dossier tool.

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 description scopes the tool to teams, executives, and politicians, which implies when it applies, but it never contrasts with closely-related siblings like get_actor_profile, get_track_record, or compare_management_teams. Usage is implied rather than specified, with no when-not guidance.

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.