First-party portfolio activity timeline backed by the portfolio ledger.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| since | No | ||
| until | No | ||
| venue | No | ||
| apiKey | Yes | SimpleFunctions API key | |
| cursor | No | ||
| source | No | ||
| marketId | No | ||
| thesisId | No | ||
| eventType | No | ||
| confidence | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must carry the full burden. It offers only a vague data-source hint ('backed by the portfolio ledger') but doesn't disclose what counts as activity, pagination behavior, read-only nature, or any filtering semantics. This is insufficient for a list-like tool.
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 concise sentence with no filler words, front-loading the key concept of a timeline. It could be considered under-specified, but conciseness itself is high—there is no wasted text.
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 tool's complexity (11 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), this description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain return format, parameter usage, or behavioral boundaries, making it nearly unusable for an agent attempting to invoke the tool correctly.
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 9% (only apiKey has a description), and the tool has 11 parameters. The description provides zero information about parameters like limit, since, until, venue, cursor, or eventType, not even implying their meaning. This is a critical gap.
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 states it's a 'portfolio activity timeline' backed by the ledger, which implies a listing of activities. However, it lacks a clear verb and doesn't differentiate from sibling portfolio tools like portfolio_ledger_list or portfolio_fills_list. It's somewhat vague, almost restating the tool name.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With several sibling portfolio tools (ledger, fills, positions, attribution), the description gives no context or exclusions, leaving the agent without clear selection criteria.
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.
