Generate charts for portfolio, strategy, quant, fundamentals, and sector pipeline.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| amount | No | ||
| market | No | us | |
| tickers | Yes | ||
| timeframe | No | 2y | |
| company_ticker | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | 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?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it does not. It only states the action without mentioning side effects, whether the operation is read-only, or any limitations or prerequisites. The agent cannot infer safety or side effects from this description alone.
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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence that clearly communicates the core purpose in only 12 words. It avoids unnecessary details and is well-structured, with the verb and resource first.
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?
Given 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description is far too minimal. It does not explain how parameters relate to chart categories, what values are valid, or the expected behavior. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for the missing input semantics.
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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description says nothing about the parameters. Field names like 'amount', 'timeframe', 'market', and 'company_ticker' are ambiguous without further explanation. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving the agent to guess parameter formats and meanings.
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 'Generate charts' and specifies scope via 'portfolio, strategy, quant, fundamentals, and sector pipeline.' It is not tautological and provides concrete context. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like generate_chart_pack or plot_charts, which likely overlap in functionality.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or situations where another tool would be more appropriate. Given overlapping sibling tools, the lack of usage guidance is a significant gap.
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.
Several tools overlap significantly: plot_charts is an explicit alias for generate_charts, generate_chart_pack and generate_charts have similar purposes, and backtesting tools like backtest_macd_momentum vs backtest_macd_trend_follower or backtest_mean_reversion_rsi_bb vs backtest_rsi_mean_reversion are easily confused. The sector tools also have fuzzy boundaries.
Most tools follow a clear verb_noun pattern (analyze_*, backtest_*, get_*, generate_*). However, two tools use a 'tool' suffix (analyze_sector_intelligence_tool, find_sector_stock_pipeline_tool) which deviates from the otherwise consistent naming style.
At 25 tools, the server is at the heavy end of the acceptable range. The scope is broad (analysis, backtesting, charting, portfolio optimization, alerts), but redundant chart tools and overlapping backtest strategies inflate the count and hurt focus.
The toolset covers the core domain well: technical analysis, backtesting, trade planning, portfolio optimization, quotes, news, and alerts. Minor gaps exist, such as no watchlist management tool (scanning only) and no direct historical data fetch, but these are workable around the existing tools.