Search PropScorer's prop firm database by name, category, platform, instrument, or rule preference.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | Optional text query, for example Apex, Topstep, Tradovate, crypto, or daily payouts. | |
| category | No | futures |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only lists searchable fields and does not mention limit behavior, category default, pagination, result format, or read-only nature. This significant gap leaves the agent unsure of expected outcomes.
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 with no filler. It is concise and to the point, but omits useful behavioral and usage details, making it efficient yet incomplete.
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 the absence of an output schema, annotations, and a rich parameter schema, the description is too sparse. It does not mention the default limit (10), maximum (25), or default category ('futures'), nor does it describe what the search returns. For a general search tool among specialized siblings, this is insufficient 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 description coverage is only 33% (only 'query' has a description). The tool description adds meaning by clarifying that queries can be names, categories, platforms, instruments, or rule preferences, which helps interpret the 'query' parameter. However, it does not explain 'limit' or 'category' beyond what the schema already provides, so compensation is partial.
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') and clearly identifies the resource ('PropScorer's prop firm database') along with the search dimensions (name, category, platform, instrument, rule preference). It conveys what the tool does but does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like find_firms_by_rules.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as compare_firms or find_firms_by_rules. There are no when-not-to-use conditions or alternative recommendations, leaving the agent without a clear selection heuristic.
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.
