Regulatory pulse — SEC Atom RSS + openFDA adverse + USPTO TSDR + FCC OET + FAA registry hints for bio/tech Polymarkets. Returns events by org + provenance.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| org | No | all|sec|fda|uspto|fcc|faa|openfda | |
| hours_back | No | Hours back, default 24 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are empty, so description carries the burden. It lists data sources but doesn't disclose read-only nature, side effects, or rate limits. Adequate but not comprehensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences convey purpose and sources efficiently. Front-loaded with key details. Slightly dense but concise overall.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema; description only vaguely states 'returns events by org + provenance'. Missing return structure, event format, and 'hints' explanation. Incomplete for a multi-source aggregator.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description mentions 'by org' but does not add meaningful detail beyond schema descriptions. No improvement over structured data.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states tool aggregates regulatory signals from multiple agencies (SEC, FDA, USPTO, FCC, FAA) and returns events by org and provenance. This differentiates it from sibling tools that focus on single sources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use or alternative mentions. The list of sources implies usage for multi-agency regulatory pulse, but an agent could benefit from guidance to use specific sibling tools for single-source queries.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Tools cover very diverse domains (weather, FDA, legal, crypto, etc.), so cross-domain confusion is low. However, within domains there is notable overlap: multiple food recall tools (food_recall_check, food_safety), multiple weather tools (weather_current_global, weather_forecast_grid, weather_alerts, weather_bias), and several Polymarket-related tools. This can cause agent misselection.
Naming is inconsistent: some tools use verb_noun (search_arxiv, scrape, validate_agent_manifest), others use noun phrases (smart_money, space_weather, tide_data), and some are long descriptive phrases (cross_platform_arb_scan, polymarket_event_scan). No single pattern is followed, making predictions difficult.
95 tools is excessively high for any coherent purpose. The server appears to be a random aggregation of APIs with no clear scope. Such a large catalog overwhelms agents and dilutes utility; most tools could be split into specialized servers.
Although many domains are touched, each is covered only shallowly. For example, weather lacks historical data, legal lacks case details beyond court opinions, and financial lacks stock prices. There are obvious gaps like no user authentication or data persistence. The tool set feels like a collection of endpoints rather than a cohesive service.