list_rulesPaginated newest-first listing of the caller's own rules. Tier: sp500+ (sample rejected).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | Pagination cursor from a previous response's next_cursor. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| _meta | Yes | Provenance envelope — data lineage for every MCP response | |
| rules | Yes | ||
| next_cursor | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds behavioral details beyond the annotations: pagination, newest-first ordering, caller ownership, and the sp500+ tier restriction ('sample rejected'). These are valuable for the agent to understand how the tool behaves and what access is required.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every phrase adds meaningful information (pagination, ordering, scope, tier). No unnecessary words.
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?
With an output schema present, the description sufficiently covers key behavioral aspects: scope, ordering, pagination, and access tier. The tool is simple with only two optional parameters, and the description provides enough context for correct invocation.
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 mentions pagination but does not detail limit/cursor semantics. However, the schema provides a clear description for cursor and constraints for limit, so parameters are partially documented. The description adds minimal additional meaning beyond the schema.
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 explicitly states 'Paginated newest-first listing of the caller's own rules', defining the exact action, resource, and scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools by emphasizing 'caller's own' rules and noting the pagination and ordering.
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 implies usage through the name and wording but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when to use this tool over others. The 'caller's own' scope provides some context, but no when-not-to-use guidance is 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.
Each tool has a distinct purpose with detailed descriptions that clarify differences. Overlaps like get_peer_comparables vs screen_universe are well-differentiated by scope (single company vs cross-sectional). Similarly, get_insider_sentiment vs get_smart_money_flow are clearly distinguished by data sources and methodology.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., create_report, get_financial_ratios, delete_alert). No mixing of conventions or inconsistent verbs.
With 69 tools, the count far exceeds the 25+ threshold for 'too many'. While the domain is broad, the sheer volume likely overwhelms agents and increases selection complexity.
The tool set covers a wide range of SEC filings, ratios, smart-money data, alerts, reports, and more. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no options or detailed debt data), but most analyst workflows are supported.