Get actionable trading insights at your current station (Returns trading insights based on your trading skill level. No parameters needed. Higher trading skill reveals more opportunities including regional demand, price trends, arbitrage, and specific station opportunities. Only references stations you have visited.)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| session_id | Yes | Your session ID from login/register |
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?
The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: insights depend on trading skill, include specific opportunity types (regional demand, price trends, arbitrage), and are limited to visited stations. No contradiction with annotations.
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 only two sentences but contains redundancy ('Get actionable trading insights' vs 'Returns trading insights') and the inaccurate 'No parameters needed' claim. It could be more concise and accurate.
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?
The description covers the tool's purpose and skill-based behavior, but with no output schema, it lacks details on the exact return format. The false parameter statement also creates a completeness gap, making this a minimally adequate description.
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 description incorrectly states 'No parameters needed', directly contradicting the schema which requires session_id. This is actively misleading and could cause the agent to omit a required parameter, detracting from the schema's clear parameter documentation.
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 states the tool's function: 'Get actionable trading insights at your current station' with specific scope ('stations you have visited') and skill-dependent opportunities. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like view_market by focusing on insight generation rather than raw market data.
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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: when the user wants trading insights based on their skill level, with higher skill revealing more opportunities. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.
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.
Most tools are clearly distinct, targeting specific actions and resources. A few overlaps exist (e.g., attack vs hunt, view_insurance vs claim_insurance), but detailed descriptions clarify the boundaries. The scale makes selection harder, but each tool has a clear purpose.
The majority use a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., create_buy_order, get_cargo, accept_mission). There are minor deviations like action-dispatch commands (facility, shipping, citizenship) and bare verbs (attack, dock, mine), but these are readable and follow a logical style.
With 212 tools, the server far exceeds any reasonable scope for an MCP. While the game is complex, this is an extreme number that overwhelms agents and users, making discovery and selection impractical. The calibration considers 25+ already too many, and 212 is extreme.
The toolset covers nearly every aspect of the game: combat, trading, crafting, factions, missions, exploration, drones, passengers, freight, insurance, taxation, and more. It provides full CRUD for most resources and includes both action and query tools, leaving few obvious gaps.
