get_kb_freshness
Return knowledge base coverage and freshness for one or more firms.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slugs | No | Optional firm slugs. Omit to inspect all firms with KB rows. |
PropScorer
TDQS
C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Return', which implies a read operation, but does not reveal side effects, authentication needs, output format, or any caveats about what 'freshness' entails. This is minimal disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose. It is concise and avoids redundancy. However, it could have included usage guidance without being bloated, so it doesn't reach a perfect score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one optional parameter and no output schema, but the description still leaves ambiguity about what 'coverage and freshness' concretely represent (e.g., scores, timestamps, format). It is minimally viable for a read tool but lacks details that an agent would need to interpret the result effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% because the sole parameter 'slugs' has a clear description ('Optional firm slugs. Omit to inspect all firms with KB rows.'). The tool description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description has a specific verb ('Return') and a clear resource ('knowledge base coverage and freshness for one or more firms'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on KB metrics, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The phrase 'for one or more firms' adds useful scope information.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 simply states what it returns, leaving the agent to infer usage. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tool recommendations, making this a clear gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
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.
Naming Consistency5/5
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.
Tool Count5/5
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.
Completeness5/5
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.