Live intraday get_buy_list: today's ranked candidates while their entry windows (READY/SETUP) are still open. No wallet? get_buy_list is free, one market day delayed. $0.02 USDC per call (x402).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that this is a paid call ($0.02 USDC via x402) and implies a wallet requirement. It also indicates the intraday/live nature and that candidates are shown while entry windows are open. It does not mention rate limits or failure modes, but given zero parameters and no output schema, it provides sufficient behavioral context.
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 compact and contains no fluff, but the first sentence is slightly clunky with 'Live intraday get_buy_list' as a noun phrase. It packs three pieces of information (live status, delay comparison, cost) into three short sentences, earning a high score though not a perfect 5.
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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, when to use the alternative, and cost. It does not describe the response format, but that is often acceptable when no output schema exists. The reference to READY/SETUP is domain-specific but provides meaningful context.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema trivially covers 100%. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description adds context about what the tool returns (ranked candidates) but does not need to explain parameters since there are none.
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 it returns live intraday ranked buy candidates with entry windows still open (READY/SETUP). It differentiates from the sibling get_buy_list by emphasizing the 'live' and 'intraday' nature, which distinguishes it from the delayed free version.
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 explicitly contrasts with get_buy_list: if no wallet, use the free delayed version. This implies the live version requires a wallet/cost and is for real-time needs. However, it does not explicitly state 'use this when you need real-time data' beyond the name and context.
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.
Most market-data and storefront tools are cleanly scoped, but there is meaningful overlap: get_full_board and get_engine_feed are near-duplicates, get_buy_list overlaps with get_morning_brief's candidate list, and get_orders / get_order_status are identical NotOffered stubs. The free/live twin pairs are clearly labeled so agents can distinguish latency/payment intent, but the sheer number of related reads creates selection friction.
The large get_* data family is very predictable (get_stock_read, get_stock_read_live, get_rotation, get_rotation_live), and storefront ools use clear verb_noun actions (add_to_cart, remove_from_cart, save_memory). Minor deviations like checkout_handoff and the get_live_setup / get_live_rules naming (which could be misread as *_live twins) keep it from a perfect score.
46 tools is well abovethe 25+ threshold for a coherent toset; at leat13 are direc live twins of free readable plus a 14-tool storefont/memory subdomain. Many could be consoliated into ingle tools with a delay/live param or a single storefront resource, making the surface feel bloated for agents.
The market-data surface is very comphehensive: regime, buy-list, hold-state, rotation, sector, stock, crypto day/night/trend/setups, full board, archived board, changes, and engine-feed coverage leave few dead ends for the stated trading-intelligence purpose. Storefont is adequate but has minor acknowledged gaps—orders/order-status are NotOffered stubs and session memories have no update/delete—so it is not a perfect 5.
