Gemral Edge

Unified Ticker Intelligence

get_ticker_intelligence

One-ticker summary combining six public-record views: government contracts, policy exposure, insider transaction filings, management credibility, upcoming catalysts and historical signal outcomes. Read-only evidence.

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": {
      "ticker": "<ticker>"
    },
    "name": "get_ticker_intelligence"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ticker`	Yes	Stock ticker, e.g. PLTR, NVDA

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

B3/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

The description asserts 'Read-only evidence', but the annotations declare readOnlyHint=false. That is a direct contradiction about the tool's side-effect profile. Beyond this claim it discloses nothing else behavioral (aggregation cost, latency across six views, caching), and the one piece of behavior it does state conflicts with structured data.

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 summary framing followed by the six components, then a short qualifier. No filler. The final sentence is the one weak element, since it is both short and inaccurate.

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

Completeness3/5

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 documentation is correctly omitted, and the single parameter is fully covered by the schema. However, for an aggregate tool that fans out across six data sources, the description says nothing about cost, latency, or partial-failure behavior, and its read-only claim conflicts with the annotations.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Stock ticker, e.g. PLTR, NVDA'), so the schema fully documents it. The description adds only 'one-ticker', which reinforces singular-ticker semantics but contributes no format or validation detail. Baseline 3 applies.

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 concrete verb+resource ('one-ticker summary') and enumerates the six underlying views (government contracts, policy exposure, insider filings, management credibility, catalysts, historical outcomes). That enumeration implicitly distinguishes it from the single-view siblings such as get_management_credibility, get_upcoming_catalysts, and get_signal_historical_outcomes, though it never explicitly says it is an aggregate of them.

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 word 'summary' plus 'one-ticker' implies the use case (a quick consolidated read for a single ticker), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of the alternative of calling the individual sibling tools. The agent must infer the routing decision from the list of components.

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.