yesterdays_number_getA random number, aged 24 hours for smoothness. Some numbers are better with time. This one is fine.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| format | No | Response format |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | No | ISO date when the number was generated | |
| format | No | Response format (raw, bloomberg, or sommelier) | |
| number | No | A random number aged 24 hours |
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?
The description contradicts annotations. It says 'random number' implying non-determinism, but annotations include idempotentHint: true, meaning identical requests should yield identical results. This inconsistency undermines transparency.
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?
Brief at three sentences, but the content is whimsical and not actionable. Conciseness is not helpful if it sacrifices clarity.
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 is incomplete for a tool with one optional parameter and an output schema. It fails to clarify what the random number represents, how the format affects output, or any usage context.
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% (format parameter described), but the description adds nothing about parameter meaning. It does not explain the enum values (raw, bloomberg, sommelier), leaving the agent without context for choosing a format.
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 'A random number, aged 24 hours for smoothness' is vague on the tool's purpose. It never explicitly states that it retrieves a number from yesterday, and the whimsical tone obscures the core function. No clear verb+resource structure.
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 guidance on when or when not to use this tool compared to siblings. The description does not mention use cases, prerequisites, or alternatives.
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.
Many tools have overlapping purposes, such as multiple query tools (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research) and prediction market analysis tools (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges). While descriptions help differentiate, the clustering of similar functions may cause confusion.
All tools use snake_case, but the pattern varies: some start with verbs (forget, remember, recall) while others start with nouns (entity_profile, pipeworx_trending). The naming is generally clear with minor inconsistencies.
With 31 tools, the set is slightly large but appropriate given the broad scope covering company data, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, and more. A few tools like yesterdays_number_get seem out of place, but overall the count is reasonable.
The tool set covers many domains comprehensively (SEC, FDA, FRED, prediction markets), but there are notable gaps such as no direct web search or stock price tool beyond routed queries. The server feels like a collection of capabilities rather than a unified domain.