LIVE day-trade state map (~5 min refresh in market hours): 18-cell lights grid, GO, FUEL vs the tab's anchor ETF, efficiency, ATR%, vs-SPY, entry-window state and ROOM (% + bars to the nearest overhead level) on ~70 liquid names. A STATE MAP, not a ranking - all-lit boards flag ext:true (late). No wallet? get_day_board is yesterday's map, free. $0.01 USDC per call (x402).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses the ~5 minute refresh during market hours, the $0.01 USDC cost per call, the 'ext:true' flag meaning late, and the state-map vs ranking behavior. This goes well beyond basic expectations.
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 dense and front-loaded with the core purpose, but it contains four sentences with multiple clauses. Each sentence adds value, yet the length is slightly more than the leanest possible. Overall, it is well-structured with no fluff.
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, no-output-schema tool, the description is highly complete. It covers what the data map contains, refresh cadence, cost, the meaning of 'ext:true,' and a fallback alternative, giving the agent all essential context to select and invoke the tool correctly.
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, so there is no schema to clarify. The description adds rich context about the data and behavior, which compensates for the absence of parameters. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools.
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 explicitly defines the tool as a 'LIVE day-trade state map' with a concrete feature list (18-cell lights grid, GO, FUEL, efficiency, ATR%, vs-SPY, entry-window state, ROOM) and explicitly contrasts it with a ranking and with the sibling get_day_board. This makes its purpose unmistakable and distinguishes it from similar tools.
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 provides explicit usage guidance: it tells the user to use get_day_board instead if they have no wallet ('No wallet? get_day_board is yesterday's map, free'), implying this tool requires payment and is for live data. It also clarifies that it is 'not a ranking,' telling the agent it should not be used for ranking purposes.
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.
