get_weekly_analyticsGet 7-day aggregated ETF flow analytics for all tracked assets. Returns total net flow, the number of trading days in the window, average flow per trading day, and count of positive vs negative days per asset. Weekends are excluded. A compact momentum summary without the full daily series.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real behavioral detail: the exact aggregate fields returned, that weekends are excluded from the trading-day count, and that the daily series is omitted. It does not discuss caching or freshness of the 7-day window, which is a minor 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?
Three tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then return fields, then the exclusion rule and the summary framing. Every sentence carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.
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, the description fully compensates by enumerating the returned metrics (net flow, trading days, average flow per day, positive/negative day counts) and the weekend-exclusion rule. Nothing needed to call this zero-arg tool correctly is missing.
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 tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case. The description correctly implies a fixed default of all tracked assets over a fixed 7-day window, matching the empty schema with no ambiguity.
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?
States a specific verb and resource with scope: 'Get 7-day aggregated ETF flow analytics for all tracked assets.' The phrase 'all tracked assets' plus 'compact momentum summary without the full daily series' hints at how it differs from per-asset siblings, but no sibling is named explicitly, so differentiation is inferential rather than stated.
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?
'A compact momentum summary without the full daily series' implies when to prefer this over a daily-series call, which is useful contextual guidance. However, it never names an alternative (e.g., get_asset_flows or get_flows_summary) or states when NOT to use it, so the agent must infer routing.
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.