Search the KB for firms matching a rule preference, such as static drawdown, news trading allowed, daily payouts, or no consistency rule.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | Rule preference or restriction to search for. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It states this is a search operation but does not disclose whether it is read-only, whether special permissions are needed, how the search matches (exact, fuzzy, boolean), or what the response contains. This is a significant transparency gap.
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 sentence with useful examples, no redundancy, and the action is front-loaded. It is concise and clear, though the examples make it slightly longer than necessary. It earns a 4 for being efficient without additional explanatory detail.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the tool returns, any limitations (e.g., maximum limit), and the nature of the knowledge base. It only states the search action and examples, leaving the response format and edge cases undisclosed. This is insufficient for full agent comprehension.
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 describes 'query' but not 'limit'. The description adds example rule preferences for the query parameter, providing meaningful context beyond the raw schema. However, it does not explain the 'limit' parameter's behavior, and the schema coverage is only 50%, leaving some parameters without semantic guidance.
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 'Search' with a resource 'KB' and clarifies the specific scope 'firms matching a rule preference'. Examples of rule preferences are given, making the purpose clear. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'search_firms', so it doesn't fully earn a 5.
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 when searching for firms by a rule preference, and provides example queries. However, it does not state when not to use this tool or mention alternative tools such as 'search_firms' or 'compare_firm_rules' for different use cases.
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, but a few overlaps exist: search_firms and find_firms_by_rules both support rule-based search, and compare_firms vs compare_firm_rules vs rank_firms_for_trader_profile all involve comparing multiple firms though with different focuses. Descriptions are detailed enough to guide selection in most cases.
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (get_, compare_, search_, rank_, etc.). The verbs clearly indicate the action and the nouns indicate the target, making the set predictable and easy to navigate.
With 11 tools, the server is well-scoped for a prop firm analysis domain. Each tool serves a distinct function from searching and scoring to comparing, ranking, and answering complex questions, without excessive overlap or unnecessary proliferation.
The tool set covers the full lifecycle of prop firm evaluation: finding firms, retrieving scores and rules, comparing firms, ranking by trader profile, accessing deals, payout intel, and KB freshness. It also includes a general Q&A tool for complex queries, filling any potential gaps. No major missing operations are apparent.
