Skip to main content
Glama

The River

by markets.theriver
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Strategy link

strategy_link
Read-only

A pre-filled River strategy card link (Base, ST0x stocks). Cards and fields: dip (budget, start, step, rungs); peg (amount, discount, max); recurring (budget, days, hours, max); cycle (budget, buy, step, levels, repeat, top, sell); take-profit (amount, target); sell-ladder (amount, first, last, parts); stop (amount, trigger, floor); breakout (amount, trigger, max); spread (amount, spread, weekend); portfolio (amount, preset, stocks). Missing fields are left for the user. See https://theriver.markets/llms.txt for what each card does. The user reviews this on The River and signs in their own wallet; nothing happens until they do.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cardYes
fieldsNoCard fields as plain decimals, e.g. {"amount":"100","discount":"0.3"}
symbolNoTicker or token symbol, e.g. NVDA or wtNVDA (not for portfolio)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / card / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "dip",
-  "peg",
-  "recurring",
-  "cycle",
-  "take-profit",
-  "stop",
-  "breakout",
-  "spread",
-  "portfolio"
-]New value: +[
+  "dip",
+  "peg",
+  "recurring",
+  "cycle",
+  "take-profit",
+  "sell-ladder",
+  "stop",
+  "breakout",
+  "spread",
+  "portfolio"
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior by clarifying that nothing executes until the user signs in their own wallet, and that omitted fields are deliberately left blank for the user to fill. It does not describe the returned link's shape, but with no output schema that is a minor omission rather than a contradiction.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The core purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and the long card/field enumeration is information-dense rather than padded. It is a single heavy paragraph, but nearly every token carries routing or field information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 3-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers what the tool returns (a link), how fields are handled, and that user action is required. The reliance on an external URL for per-card semantics is the main gap, but the essentials an agent needs to invoke it are present.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 67% and the enum on 'card' has no schema-level description, so the description's card-by-card field listing (dip: budget/start/step/rungs, etc.) meaningfully compensates for that gap. It stops short of explaining what each field means, deferring to an external llms.txt URL, which weakens the added value somewhat.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description makes clear this produces a pre-filled River strategy card link, and it enumerates exactly which cards exist (dip, peg, recurring, etc.), so an agent knows what resource it operates on. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling trade_link, which is the most plausible confusable alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'Missing fields are left for the user' and 'the user reviews this on The River and signs in their own wallet; nothing happens until they do' convey the intended workflow. However, there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-trade_link guidance or any stated precondition, leaving the agent to infer the routing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All The River toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources