Skip to main content
Glama

Bullrun

by org.bull-run
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Get risk movers

get_risk_movers
Read-only

Companies whose Bullrun composite risk score crossed into a different band (e.g. Elevated -> Stretched, or Acute -> Stretched) within the last N days, with prior and current score, the move in points, and the input driving the reading. Use for "what got riskier this week", "any risk deteriorations I should know about", or to monitor a watchlist (pass the tickers to get_company_risk afterwards). Band changes, not small score drift, so every row changed a word on the page. Read-only.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
daysNoLook-back window in days for band changes.
limitNo
directionNoKeep only companies whose composite got worse, got better, or both.all
minMarketCapUsdNoOnly companies with at least this market capitalisation in USD, e.g. 1e9 for $1B+. Without it the list is dominated by micro-caps, whose scores move most.
stableBasisOnlyNotrue (default) = only real movements. false also includes band changes caused purely by a category starting or stopping scoring (coverage changes, flagged basisChanged).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / minMarketCapUsd
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Only companies with at least this market capitalisation in USD, e.g. 1e9 for $1B+. Without it the list is dominated by micro-caps, whose scores move most.",
+  "minimum": 0,
+  "type": "number"
+}
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds useful context beyond that: band-crossing semantics, output fields like prior/current score and driving input, and the distinction between real movements and coverage-driven changes. The final 'Read-only' is redundant with annotations, but the rest adds substantive behavioral detail.

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 definition is front-loaded, followed by concrete use cases and a useful scope clarification. It is slightly dense and the final 'Read-only' repeats an annotation, but most sentences earn their place.

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?

With no output schema, the description does a good job naming the returned fields and explaining the band-change concept. It does not cover pagination or limit behavior, but the core filters and output semantics are sufficiently clear for an agent to call it correctly.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 80%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the meaning of the days window and the band-change/stable-basis distinction, but it does not add meaning for the limit parameter and largely relies on the schema for the rest.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description states a specific resource and behavior: companies whose Bullrun composite risk score crossed into a different band within the last N days, including prior/current score and the move. It clearly distinguishes this from a general company-risk lookup by emphasizing band changes rather than small score drift.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It gives explicit use cases such as 'what got riskier this week' and 'risk deteriorations I should know about,' plus a watchlist workflow that points to get_company_risk afterwards. It also clarifies the key exclusion: band changes, not small score drift.

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

All Bullrun 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