Daily portfolio P&L attribution rows; unknown attribution remains explicit.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | YYYY-MM-DD | |
| from | No | YYYY-MM-DD | |
| limit | No | ||
| venue | No | ||
| apiKey | Yes | SimpleFunctions API key | |
| cursor | No | ||
| source | No | ||
| marketId | No | ||
| thesisId | 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It adds one valuable trait—'unknown attribution remains explicit'—but says nothing about read-only safety, pagination, authentication, rate limits, or response format. This is a minimal disclosure for a reporting 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 extremely concise with no wasted words; every segment adds information. The phrase 'unknown attribution remains explicit' is dense and relevant. However, it is a sentence fragment and brevity comes at the cost of critical context.
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 10-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain return structure, filtering semantics, grouping differences, or usage context, leaving the agent to guess how 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 30%, and the description contributes zero parameter-level meaning. The ten parameters (to, from, limit, venue, cursor, source, marketId, thesisId, confidence) remain unexplained beyond bare schema descriptions, and 'unknown attribution' does not clarify filter behavior or date-range semantics.
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 resource as daily portfolio P&L attribution rows, distinguishing it from sibling portfolio_attribution_grouped via the word 'daily.' However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'fetches' or 'returns,' so the read operation is implied 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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as portfolio_attribution_grouped or other portfolio_* tools. The word 'daily' hints at a granular use case, but no explicit exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tool references are given.
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.
