Daily mNAV history for one treasury ticker (oldest first).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | Lookback window in days · snapped to the nearest supported window (30, 90, 180, 365); defaults to 90 | |
| ticker | Yes | MSTR, XXI, MPJPY, or ASST |
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, and openWorld hints. The description adds value by specifying ordering (oldest first) and granularity (daily mNAV history), which are not in annotations. It does not contradict 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every part ('Daily mNAV history', 'one treasury ticker', 'oldest first') is meaningful.
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?
Without an output schema, the description should clarify the return structure. It mentions 'Daily mNAV history' and ordering, but does not specify fields (e.g., date, mNAV value) or pagination. It is adequate but incomplete.
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%, so the schema fully documents both parameters. The description does not add extra meaning beyond restating the ticker concept ('one treasury ticker') and the output ordering. Baseline score of 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 states the action (get history), resource (mNAV for a treasury ticker), and ordering (oldest first). It is specific and distinguishable from siblings like get_treasuries which likely returns current data.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., get_treasuries for current values, get_gauge_history for other data). The description merely states what it does without usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
