Full public record for one sleeve: stats, indexed performance curve (100 = inception), drawdown series, and the complete submitted-order log. All figures are SIMULATED paper trading.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sleeve | Yes | Which sleeve to fetch | |
| include | No | stats = summary only; curve (alias: equity) = + indexed performance/drawdown series; trades = + full order log; all = everything | stats |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / include / descriptionPrevious value: -"stats = summary only; equity = + daily equity/drawdown series; trades = + full order log; all = everything"New value: +"stats = summary only; curve (alias: equity) = + indexed performance/drawdown series; trades = + full order log; all = everything"Input schema / properties / include / enumPrevious value: -[
- "stats",
- "equity",
- "trades",
- "all"
-]New value: +[
+ "stats",
+ "curve",
+ "equity",
+ "trades",
+ "all"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that figures are simulated paper trading, which is useful context, and implies a public read operation. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, error behavior, or explicit safety guarantees, leaving gaps.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and contents, followed by a critical simulation warning. Every word earns its place with no fluff or redundancy.
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?
Given the simple parameter set and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's return contents and simulation context. It could elaborate on the return format or pagination, but for a list/record fetch, it is reasonably complete.
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 coverage is 100%, providing baseline 3. The description adds value by explaining the indexed performance curve (100 = inception) and enumerating the include options, which goes beyond the schema's terse descriptions.
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 states the tool returns the full public record for one sleeve, listing specific components (stats, indexed performance curve, drawdown series, order log). It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings, but the resource and action are clear.
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 (fetch a sleeve's record) but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives among siblings. It doesn't state exclusions or conditions, so only implied context exists.
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 clear, distinct purpose: fleet_overview summarizes all sleeves, sleeve_record drills into one, gate_status tracks the go-live gate, kill_list logs rejected ideas, research_journal lists documents, research_note fetches a single document, and site_guide explains the platform. The only close pair is fleet_overview vs. sleeve_record, but their scopes (global vs. single sleeve) prevent confusion.
All tool names follow the same lowercase snake_case pattern with two tokens separated by an underscore (e.g., fleet_overview, gate_status, research_note). There are no mixed conventions like camelCase or inconsistent verb styles.
Seven tools is ideal for a read-only transparency platform. Each tool covers a distinct aspect of the domain without redundancy, and the count is well within the typical well-scoped 3–15 range.
The tool set fully covers its stated purpose: aggregate and per-sleeve performance, research journal and note retrieval, failure records, gate status, and self-description. There are no obvious dead ends—users can start at the overview, drill into details, and access all published documentation.