apex_run_regime_hurstPure regime classifier over supplied prices: returns Hurst estimate and mean_reverting/random_walk/trending label. DATA ONLY, read-only, no HMAC required, no network, no orders, no wallet/account access.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lower | No | ||
| upper | No | ||
| prices | Yes |
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 annotation, the description explicitly discloses access limitations (no HMAC, no network, no orders, no wallet/account access) and labels itself as 'DATA ONLY' and 'pure'. This provides exceptional additional context about the tool's operational scope.
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 tight sentences front-load the purpose and safety guarantees without redundancy. Every clause adds value, and the structure is ideal for quick parsing.
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 covers core purpose, output, and safety, but the missing meaning of `lower`/`upper` and any guidance on defaults/constraints leaves the tool incomplete for optional parameter use. With no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, the description is only partially sufficient.
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 only references 'prices'; the optional `lower` and `upper` parameters are left unexplained, and since schema description coverage is 0%, agents have no semantic grounding for them. The likely role as Hurst thresholds is not conveyed, making this a significant gap.
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 uses a specific verb (classifies) and resource (supplied prices), clearly defines the output (Hurst estimate and regime label), and is well-distinguished from sibling tools by emphasizing 'pure regime classifier' and its data-only nature.
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?
It clearly establishes the tool's context as a data-only, read-only classifier for prices, guiding agents to use it for regime analysis without side effects. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or when not to use it, stopping short of a 5.
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.