The whole market read in one call: regime verdict per book, today's top-5 ranked buy candidates, the biggest gainers and losers, and the BTC/ETH crypto trend-gate state. Start here. Free tier: one market day delayed. Live sibling (x402, pay-per-call): get_morning_brief_live. Now includes the awareness read: today's leaders, sector money flows in/out, the most coiled setups, coverage.
| 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 behavioral burden. It discloses that data is delayed by one market day on the free tier and enumerates what the payload includes. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or discuss rate limits, but the 'get' prefix and 'read' framing make this low-risk and clear enough.
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 front-loads the core purpose and then adds the tier/delay and live alternative. The 'Now includes...' sentence is slightly promotional and could be trimmed, but it still adds useful content detail without becoming bloated.
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 gives a solid inventory of what the response contains and notes the delay and live alternative. The final 'coverage' reference is vague, but overall the agent has enough context to call it correctly and interpret the result.
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 an empty schema, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The description correctly implies that no input is needed beyond simply calling the tool.
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 names a clear resource ('morning brief') and states it gives 'the whole market read' with enumerated sections: regime verdict, top-5 buy candidates, gainers/losers, and crypto trend-gate state. It also distinguishes itself from get_morning_brief_live by calling itself the 'Start here' free-tier 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?
It explicitly says 'Start here' and contrasts the free delayed tier with the live pay-per-call sibling get_morning_brief_live. This gives an agent a clear rule: use this tool for the free, delayed market snapshot, and use the live sibling when real-time data is needed.
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.
