get_correlationsCross-asset correlation matrix (stocks, bonds, dollar, gold, oil) over 30 to 120 day windows. Newest reading plus past boards. Market data: answers with numbers on Pro and Ultimate.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Most rows to return. | |
| since | No | Oldest date to include, like 2026-06-01. How far back you can go depends on your plan. |
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?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context: it returns both the newest reading and past boards, and it notes that answers with numbers depend on Pro/Ultimate access. 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 compact and front-loaded: three short sentences cover asset classes, time windows, output format, and access constraints. It is efficient and easy to scan without waste.
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?
For a read-only tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: assets, windows, output type, and plan requirements. Minor gaps such as exact row format and default limit are partially mitigated by the annotations and schema.
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%, with both limit and since well explained in the schema. The description does not add extra parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline 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 identifies the tool's function: it returns a cross-asset correlation matrix for stocks, bonds, dollar, gold, and oil over 30–120 day windows. It distinguishes itself from most siblings by specifying assets and lookback, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.
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?
Usage is implied—when you need cross-asset correlations, this is the tool—but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given relative to siblings like get_market_context. The only added guidance is a plan restriction note.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.