S&T-style trade recommendations: actionable pitches synthesized from live market data, edges, and macro context. Each idea has conviction level, catalyst timing, direction, and risk. Free-tier and rate-limited. START HERE when looking for what to trade.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max ideas (1-10) | |
| category | No | Filter: macro, geopolitics, crypto, policy, event | |
| freshness | No | Max cache age: 1h, 6h, 12h, 1d | 12h |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / freshness / descriptionPrevious value: -"Max cache age: 1h, 6h, 12h"New value: +"Max cache age: 1h, 6h, 12h, 1d"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that recommendations are synthesized from live market data, edges, and macro context, and that ideas include conviction level, catalyst timing, direction, and risk. It also mentions rate-limiting, which is a behavioral trait beyond the base functionality.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately followed by valuable usage context. Every phrase earns its place, including the output attributes and the rate-limit warning. No wasted words.
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?
For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides a solid overview: purpose, output characteristics, and usage directive. It could specify return format or pagination, but the mention of conviction level, catalyst timing, direction, and risk gives a good sense of what to expect. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for a list-type tool.
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 input schema already describes all three parameters (limit, category, freshness) with 100% coverage. The description does not add any additional meaning to these parameters, but it doesn't need to since the schema is self-explanatory. The description focuses on the output rather than parameter usage, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly identifies the tool as providing "S&T-style trade recommendations" and "actionable pitches," which is a specific verb-resource pairing. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing trade ideas specifically, and the directive "START HERE" reinforces its unique role.
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 explicitly states "START HERE when looking for what to trade," giving clear guidance on when to use this tool. It also notes free-tier and rate-limiting, which helps set expectations. However, it does not mention when not to use it or point to specific alternatives among the many sibling tools.
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 market query tools (scan_markets, screen_markets, get_market_detail, get_market_diff, get_market_history, inspect_ticker) and legislative tools (legislation, get_legislation, list_legislation, query_gov). Aliases like get_heartbeat_config/get_heartbeat_status and explore_public/explore_theses add further confusion. An agent would struggle to select the correct tool without deeply reading each description.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (get_, list_, create_, update_), but there are notable deviations: 'legislation' lacks the 'get_' prefix, 'stt' and 'tts' are acronyms, 'monitor_the_situation' is a full phrase, and 'x_account/x_news/x_volume' use a non-standard prefix. The overall style is readable, but the mixed conventions reduce predictability.
108 tools is extreme for any server, even one covering prediction markets, trading, portfolio management, forum, skills, and speech. The massive surface area overwhelms agents and makes the server feel more like a platform than a coherent toolkit. This many tools inevitably leads to redundancy and maintenance burden.
The server covers an impressively broad domain: market data, thesis management, intents, strategies, positions, portfolio, forum, skills, legislative and economic queries, and audio/visual processing. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no delete for skills/theses, no update for some portfolio items) but core workflows are well-supported. Overall lifecycle coverage for most entities is strong.