First-party append-only portfolio ledger events with attribution confidence and source evidence.
| 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 are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses 'append-only' and mentions attribution confidence and source evidence, which gives some context, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, how results are ordered or paginated, or include any caveats about filters or authentication.
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 sentence, so it has no wasted words, but it is severely under-specified for a tool with 11 parameters. The structure lacks a clear action verb and front-loads a vague noun phrase instead of a definitive operation.
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?
This is a high-complexity tool with 11 parameters, no output schema, and numerous sibling tools, yet the description provides only a brief noun phrase. It gives no information about return values, pagination, filtering behavior, or even what distinguishes it from other portfolio list tools.
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?
With 11 parameters and only 9% schema description coverage, the description needed to explain key parameters but doesn't. It mentions 'attribution confidence' at a high level but never maps it to the confidence parameter or explains limit, since, until, source, marketId, eventType, etc.
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 names a specific resource ('portfolio ledger events') and implies a list operation via the tool name, but it uses a noun phrase with no explicit verb like 'list' or 'retrieve'. It does not differentiate from sibling portfolio list tools such as portfolio_activity_list or portfolio_fills_list.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the many sibling list tools (portfolio_activity_list, portfolio_fills_list, portfolio_positions_list), the description lacks any usage context or exclusions.
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.
