get_fx_boardFX momentum scorecard: seven major currencies scored against the basket. 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 cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond those annotations: it returns numeric market data on Pro and Ultimate plans, and it includes both the newest reading and historical boards. This helps the agent set expectations around plan restrictions and data availability.
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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose. The last sentence, "Market data: answers with numbers on Pro and Ultimate," is a bit awkward but still captures plan-gated numeric output in a compact way.
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 simple read-only endpoint with two optional, well-documented parameters, this description is reasonably complete. It covers the content of the scorecard, the ability to view past boards, and a plan-related restriction. It does not enumerate return columns or explicitly handle sibling-tool confusion, but those are not critical gaps for 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the `limit` and `since` parameters are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces that historical boards are available but does not add meaningful detail about how `limit` or `since` should be formatted or how they interact.
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 resource: an FX momentum board/scorecard with seven major currencies scored against a basket, plus current and historical boards. It is more specific than just restating the tool name, but it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like get_correlations or get_vol_board.
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 intended use case is implied by the description: an FX momentum scorecard with current and past readings. However, there is no explicit statement about when to choose this versus other market-data siblings, and no "use X instead" guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.