Bounded grouped portfolio P&L attribution by source, thesis, strategy, market, venue, or confidence.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | YYYY-MM-DD | |
| from | No | YYYY-MM-DD | |
| limit | No | ||
| venue | No | ||
| apiKey | Yes | SimpleFunctions API key | |
| source | No | ||
| groupBy | No | day, venue, marketId, thesisId, thesisStrategyId, portfolioStrategyId, source, viewId, or attributionConfidence | |
| 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?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It only introduces 'bounded' without explaining what is bounded (e.g., date range, limits) and does not disclose read-only status, response format, or any side effects. The ambiguity of 'bounded' is a transparency 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?
The description is a single, compact sentence with no redundancy. It uses front-loaded key terms ('Bounded grouped portfolio P&L attribution') but sacrifices informational content for brevity, making it more under-specified than genuinely concise.
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 (10 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It does not cover return values, parameter semantics, behavioral constraints, or usage context, failing to provide enough information for an agent to invoke it 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 40%, with 6 parameters undocumented. The description lists some grouping dimensions (source, thesis, strategy, market, venue, confidence) which loosely align with the groupBy enum, but it does not explain filters (e.g., from, to, limit, marketId) or how to specify grouping. The added value is minimal and broad.
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 indicates a grouped portfolio P&L attribution tool with a clear resource ('portfolio P&L attribution') and grouping dimensions. The word 'grouped' distinguishes it from the sibling portfolio_attribution_daily, though 'bounded' is vague and the description lacks an explicit verb.
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 like portfolio_attribution_daily or other portfolio analysis tools. The description does not state use cases, exclusions, or scenarios where grouped attribution would be preferred over daily.
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.
