apex_run_deflated_sharpeRun the allowlisted permissionless bounded deflated-sharpe diagnostic. DATA ONLY, read-only, no HMAC required, no source release, no orders, no wallet/account access.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| returns | Yes | ||
| n_trials | No | ||
| confidence | No | ||
| trial_sharpe_variance | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description explicitly lists behavioral boundaries: 'no HMAC required, no source release, no orders, no wallet/account access.' This is rich, beyond-annotation disclosure of what the tool will not do, adding significant context for safe invocation.
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?
The entire description is one front-loaded sentence that efficiently states the purpose and constraints. Every clause adds distinct information, with no filler or redundancy.
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?
The description adequately covers safety and accessibility but falls short on explaining what the diagnostic computes, what the input represents, or what output to expect. Given the statistical nature of the tool and the absence of an output schema, this is a meaningful gap, making it minimally viable but not complete.
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?
The description provides zero information about the parameters (returns, n_trials, confidence, trial_sharpe_variance) and the schema has no per-parameter descriptions. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description was expected to compensate but does not, leaving parameter meaning entirely to guesswork from names.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('Run') and the specific resource ('deflated-sharpe diagnostic'), and the restrictive qualifiers ('allowlisted permissionless bounded') distinguish it from sibling run_* tools. The 'DATA ONLY, read-only' addition further clarifies scope.
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?
The description implies usage for running a deflated-sharpe diagnostic without authentication or side effects, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. The access constraints ('no HMAC required', 'no orders') offer implicit guidance but no direct comparison to siblings.
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.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, and descriptions provide sufficient boundaries. Some run_* analytics tools (e.g., deflated_sharpe vs empyrical_metrics) could be conceptually confused, but their specific inputs and outputs minimize ambiguity.
All tools share the apex_ prefix, and the verb_noun pattern is consistent (get, query, run, submit). The 'agent_' subgroup within run tools introduces a minor irregularity, but it remains readily comprehensible.
With 24 tools, the server is on the heavy side, falling into the 16-25 range. Many run_* tools are similar in nature (pure calculations), but each appears to serve a specific purpose, so the count is borderline rather than excessive.
The server name implies a card store, yet the tool surface only supports reading and querying cards, with no create, update, or delete operations. This is a significant gap that prevents full lifecycle management, though the analytics side is fairly comprehensive.