Create a new universe (named set of tickers) for scoping future scans.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | Optional slug (lowercase letters, digits, underscore). Auto-generated from name if omitted. Must be unique within the account. | |
| name | Yes | Human-readable name. | |
| tickers | Yes | List of ticker symbols. | |
| description | No | Optional free-form notes. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It indicates a write operation ('create') but lacks details on success/failure, idempotency, or side effects. Adequate but not thorough.
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?
Single sentence with no wasted words; directly states the tool's purpose and context. Well-structured and front-loaded.
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 absence of an output schema, the description could have mentioned the return value (e.g., created universe ID). It covers the core purpose but leaves out expected response, making it partially incomplete.
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 100% and already documents each parameter thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 action ('Create'), the resource ('universe'), and its purpose ('named set of tickers for scoping future scans'), making it distinct from sibling tools like update_universe or delete_universe.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or constraints like uniqueness of the id or name. The description is too minimal for effective decision-making.
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 target distinct resource-action pairs, but get_ticker and get_ticker_history overlap (both return a single historical row via asof), and the four subscribe_* tools are thin wrappers around create_webhook, creating some ambiguity. Detailed descriptions mitigate but don't eliminate confusion.
The tickerbot_ prefix and verb_noun pattern are consistent (create_*, get_*, list_*, delete_*, update_*), but subscribe_* deviates from create_* for webhooks, and scan/search_news are bare verbs. Overall predictable.
35 tools is excessive for the domain; many could be consolidated (e.g., four subscribe_* variants into a single parameterized webhook creator, get_ticker/get_ticker_history into one). The breadth of data types justifies some volume, but this exceeds the 25-tool threshold for coherence.
Full lifecycle coverage for universes, custom signals, and webhooks; extensive read-side for tickers, series, bars, events, news, and scans. No critical dead ends: anything creatable can be updated/deleted/tested, and data lookups have appropriate query tools.
